You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
you remind in paper that there are two radiologists in your test. I wonder if the two radiologists look the same X-ray images or different?
if they look the same images, how do you use the one X-ray image with two annotations to caculate the attention consistency loss with uncertainty?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
duplicate the image, then you have (im1,gaze1) and (im1,gaze2) as two individual item;
chose one and discard the other one, which means you have (im1,gaze1)
You should choose your approach by your image. We have test a few: knee x-ray, mammography, chest x-ray and CatVsDog. Viewer variance on knee-xray & catvsdog are smaller than mammography and chest x-ray. Approach_2 can be applied to smaller variance data while approach_1 can be applied to both.
Thanks! I want to follow your work. Unfortunately, i have no idea to get the annotations dataset of radiologists. So would you mind publishing or sharing the dataset used in your paper?
you remind in paper that there are two radiologists in your test. I wonder if the two radiologists look the same X-ray images or different?
if they look the same images, how do you use the one X-ray image with two annotations to caculate the attention consistency loss with uncertainty?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: