VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Nicholas Heller
dblp:205/5397
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-8516-8707ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Image recognition and object detection · 60% Deep learning architectures and training · 40% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Medical and health informatics · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image annotation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Quality Assured: Rethinking Annotation Strategies in Imaging AI · ECCV (78) 2024 |
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging
medical image analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Why is the Winner the Best? · CVPR 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical analysis · 1.3crowdsourcing · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Quality Assured: Rethinking Annotation Strategies in Imaging AIabstractAbstract This paper does not describe a novel method. Instead, it studies an essential foundation for reliable benchmarking and ultimately real-world application of AI-based image analysis: generating high-quality reference annotations. Previous research has focused on crowdsourcing as a means of outsourcing annotations. However, little attention has so far been given to annotation companies, specifically regarding their internal quality assurance (QA) processes. Therefore, our aim is to evaluate the influence of QA employed by annotation companies on annotation quality and devise methodologies for maximizing data annotation efficacy. Based on a total of 57,648 instance segmented images obtained from a total of 924 annotators and 34 QA workers from four annotation companies and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we derived the following insights: (1) Annotation companies perform better both in terms of quantity and quality compared to the widely used platform MTurk. (2) Annotation companies’ internal QA only provides marginal improvements, if any. However, improving labeling instructions instead of investing in QA can substantially boost annotation performance. (3) The benefit of internal QA depends on specific image characteristics. Our work could enable researchers to derive substantially more value from a fixed annotation budget and change the way annotation companies conduct internal QA. Tim Rädsch, Annika Reinke, Vivienn Weru, Minu Tizabi, Nicholas Heller, Fabian Isensee, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Lena Maier-Hein |
ECCV (78) | 5 |
| 2023 | Why is the Winner the Best?abstractInternational benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multicenter study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and post-processing (66%). The “typical” lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work. Matthias Eisenmann, Annika Reinke, Vivienn Weru, Minu Tizabi, Fabian Isensee, Tim Adler, Sharib Ali, Vincent Andrearczyk, Marc Aubreville, Ujjwal Baid, Spyridon Bakas, Niranjan Balu, Sophia Bano, Jorge Bernal, Sebastian Bodenstedt, Alessandro Casella, Veronika Cheplygina, Marie Daum, Marleen de Bruijne, Adrien Depeursinge, Reuben Dorent, Jan Egger, David Gage Ellis, Sandy Engelhardt, Melanie Ganz-Benjaminsen, Noha M. Ghatwary, Gabriel Girard, Patrick Godau, Anubha Gupta, Lasse Hansen, Kanako Harada, Mattias P. Heinrich, Nicholas Heller, Alessa Hering, Arnaud Huaulmé, Pierre Jannin, A. Emre Kavur, Oldrich Kodym, Michal Kozubek 0001, Jianning Li 0002, Hongwei Li 0004, Jun Ma 0016, Carlos Martín-Isla, Bjoern Menze, J. Alison Noble, Valentin Oreiller, Nicolas Padoy, Sarthak Pati, Kelly Payette, Tim Rädsch, Jonathan Rafael-Patino, Vivek Singh Bawa, Stefanie Speidel, Carole H. Sudre, Kimberlin M. H. van Wijnen, Martin Wagner 0001, D. Wei, Amine Yamlahi, Moi Hoon Yap, C. Yuan, Maximilian Zenk, A. Zia, David Zimmerer, Dogu Baran Aydogan, Binod Bhattarai, Louise Bloch, Raphael Brüngel, J. Cho, C. Choi, Qi Dou 0001, Ivan Ezhov, Christoph M. Friedrich, C. Fuller, Rebati Raman Gaire, Adrian Galdran, Álvaro García-Faura, Maria Grammatikopoulou, S. Hong, Mostafa Jahanifar, I. Jang, Abdolrahim Kadkhodamohammadi, I. Kang, Florian Kofler, S. Kondo, Hugo J. Kuijf, M. Luu, Tomaz Martincic, Pedro Morais, Mohamed A. Naser, Bruno Oliveira 0002, David Owen 0001, S. Pang, Szymon Plotka, Élodie Puybareau, Nasir M. Rajpoot, K. Ryu, Numan Saeed, Adam J. Shephard, Dejan Stepec, Ronast Subedi, Guillaume Tochon, Helena R. Torres, Hélène Urien, João L. Vilaça, Kareem A. Wahid, Benedikt Wiestler, Marek Wodzinski, F. Xia, J. Xie, Z. Xiong, Sen Yang 0006, Klaus H. Maier-Hein, Paul F. Jaeger, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Lena Maier-Hein |
CVPR | 33 |
| 2021 | The state of the art in kidney and kidney tumor segmentation in contrast-enhanced CT imaging: Results of the KiTS19 challenge
Nicholas Heller, Fabian Isensee, Klaus H. Maier-Hein, Xiaoshuai Hou, Chunmei Xie, Fengyi Li, Yang Nan 0002, Guangrui Mu, Miofei Han, Guang Yao, Yaozong Gao, Yao Zhang 0010, Yixin Wang 0003, Feng Hou, Jiawei Yang 0002, Guangwei Xiong, Jiang Tian, Christopher J. Weight |
Medical Image Anal. | 1 |