{
  "id": 246340,
  "title": "Same image, different study, different label & bounding boxes",
  "url": "/competitions/siim-covid19-detection/discussion/246340",
  "author_name": "human intelligence",
  "post_date": "2021-06-15T03:06:24.086000",
  "votes": 2,
  "comment_count": 0,
  "views": 0,
  "content": "<p>This isolated case may not be representative to the entire training set and may not affect the score significantly, but we need to keep in mind that variation is part of the competition.<img src=\"https://i.ibb.co/th2fWKs/Capture.png\" alt=\"\">. Experts disagree significantly in the RICORD dataset <a href=\"https://www.kaggle.com/raddar/ricord-covid19-xray-positive-tests\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.kaggle.com/raddar/ricord-covid19-xray-positive-tests</a></p>\n<p>7b7275d670e7_image<br>\n    opacity 1 237.85695 585.61391 640.04643 1156.46352<br>\ncbe5d39a75bd_study: <strong>atypical</strong> (this label is more correct, imo…)</p>\n<p>c8156ae4d6e8_image: <br>\n    opacity 1 234.22661 611.51282 690.1889699999999 1088.2006900000001 <br>\n    opacity 1 1711.66309 1190.34816 2363.03785 1755.85988<br>\n10e35f64fc16_study: <strong>typical</strong></p>\n<p>It doesn't look like simple duplicate, because the first bbox are pretty close to each other but not identical. It is more like the annotator was given the same image twice, but he/she made different judgements.</p>",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": 1349694,
      "postDate": "2021-06-15T03:06:24.087Z",
      "content": "<p>This isolated case may not be representative to the entire training set and may not affect the score significantly, but we need to keep in mind that variation is part of the competition.<img src=\"https://i.ibb.co/th2fWKs/Capture.png\" alt=\"\">. Experts disagree significantly in the RICORD dataset <a href=\"https://www.kaggle.com/raddar/ricord-covid19-xray-positive-tests\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.kaggle.com/raddar/ricord-covid19-xray-positive-tests</a></p>\n<p>7b7275d670e7_image<br>\n    opacity 1 237.85695 585.61391 640.04643 1156.46352<br>\ncbe5d39a75bd_study: <strong>atypical</strong> (this label is more correct, imo…)</p>\n<p>c8156ae4d6e8_image: <br>\n    opacity 1 234.22661 611.51282 690.1889699999999 1088.2006900000001 <br>\n    opacity 1 1711.66309 1190.34816 2363.03785 1755.85988<br>\n10e35f64fc16_study: <strong>typical</strong></p>\n<p>It doesn't look like simple duplicate, because the first bbox are pretty close to each other but not identical. It is more like the annotator was given the same image twice, but he/she made different judgements.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "This isolated case may not be representative to the entire training set and may not affect the score significantly, but we need to keep in mind that variation is part of the competition.![] (https://i.ibb.co/th2fWKs/Capture.png). Experts disagree significantly in the RICORD dataset https://www.kaggle.com/raddar/ricord-covid19-xray-positive-tests\n\n7b7275d670e7_image\n    opacity 1 237.85695 585.61391 640.04643 1156.46352\ncbe5d39a75bd_study: **atypical** (this label is more correct, imo...)\n\nc8156ae4d6e8_image: \n    opacity 1 234.22661 611.51282 690.1889699999999 1088.2006900000001 \n    opacity 1 1711.66309 1190.34816 2363.03785 1755.85988\n10e35f64fc16_study: **typical**\n\nIt doesn't look like simple duplicate, because the first bbox are pretty close to each other but not identical. It is more like the annotator was given the same image twice, but he/she made different judgements.\n\n ",
      "votes": 2
    }
  ],
  "comments": [],
  "raw_markdown_by_id": {
    "1349694": "This isolated case may not be representative to the entire training set and may not affect the score significantly, but we need to keep in mind that variation is part of the competition.![] (https://i.ibb.co/th2fWKs/Capture.png). Experts disagree significantly in the RICORD dataset https://www.kaggle.com/raddar/ricord-covid19-xray-positive-tests\n\n7b7275d670e7_image\n    opacity 1 237.85695 585.61391 640.04643 1156.46352\ncbe5d39a75bd_study: **atypical** (this label is more correct, imo...)\n\nc8156ae4d6e8_image: \n    opacity 1 234.22661 611.51282 690.1889699999999 1088.2006900000001 \n    opacity 1 1711.66309 1190.34816 2363.03785 1755.85988\n10e35f64fc16_study: **typical**\n\nIt doesn't look like simple duplicate, because the first bbox are pretty close to each other but not identical. It is more like the annotator was given the same image twice, but he/she made different judgements.\n\n "
  }
}