Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 2.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2011 Aug 2;59(1):530–539. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.085

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Comparison of existing and proposed labeling approaches. In a traditional context, either an expert rater with extensive anatomical knowledge evaluates each dataset (A) or a small set of well-training domain experts who have been instructed by an anatomical expert (B) label each image. Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility analyses are typically performed a per-protocol basis rather than on all datasets. In the proposed WebMILL approach (C), a computer system divides the set of images to be labeled into simple puzzles consisting of a piece of a larger volume and distributes these challenges to a distributed collection of minimally training individuals. Each piece is labeled multiple times by multiple raters. A statistical fusion process simultaneously estimates the true label for each pixel and performance characteristics of each rater.