Ischemic stroke is the most common cerebrovascular disease, and its diagnosis, treatment, and study relies on non-invasive imaging. Algorithms for stroke lesion segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumes are intensely researched, but the reported results are largely incomparable due to different datasets and evaluation schemes. We approached this urgent problem of comparability with the Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation (ISLES) challenge organized in conjunction with the MICCAI 2015 conference. In this paper we propose a common evaluation framework, describe the publicly available datasets, and present the results of the two sub-challenges: Sub-Acute Stroke Lesion Segmentation (SISS) and Stroke Perfusion Estimation (SPES). A total of 16 research groups participated with a wide range of state-of-the-art automatic segmentation algorithms. A thorough analysis of the obtained data enables a critical evaluation of the current state-of-the-art, recommendations for further developments, and the identification of remaining challenges. The segmentation of acute perfusion lesions addressed in SPES was found to be feasible. However, algorithms applied to sub-acute lesion segmentation in SISS still lack accuracy. Overall, no algorithmic characteristic of any method was found to perform superior to the others. Instead, the characteristics of stroke lesion appearances, their evolution, and the observed challenges should be studied in detail. The annotated ISLES image datasets continue to be publicly available through an online evaluation system to serve as an ongoing benchmarking resource (www.isles-challenge.org).

In conjunction with the ISBI 2015 conference, we organized a longitudinal lesion segmentation challenge providing training and test data to registered participants. The training data consisted of five subjects with a mean of 4.4 time-points, and test data of fourteen subjects with a mean of 4.4 time-points. All 82 data sets had the white matter lesions associated with multiple sclerosis delineated by two human expert raters. Eleven teams submitted results using state-of-the-art lesion segmentation algorithms to the challenge, with ten teams presenting their results at the conference. We present a quantitative evaluation comparing the consistency of the two raters as well as exploring the performance of the eleven submitted results in addition to three other lesion segmentation algorithms. The challenge presented three unique opportunities: 1) the sharing of a rich data set; 2) collaboration and comparison of the various avenues of research being pursued in the community; and 3) a review and refinement of the evaluation metrics currently in use. We report on the performance of the challenge participants, as well as the construction and evaluation of a consensus delineation. The image data and manual delineations will continue to be available for download, through an evaluation website 1 as a resource for future researchers in the area. This data resource provides a platform to compare existing methods in a fair and consistent manner to each other and multiple manual raters.

International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences. First, reproducibility and interpretation of the results is often hampered as only a fraction of relevant information is typically provided. Second, the rank of an algorithm is generally not robust to a number of variables such as the test data used for validation, the ranking scheme applied and the observers that make the reference annotations. To overcome these problems, we recommend best practice guidelines and define open research questions to be addressed in the future.

Performance of models highly depend not only on the used algorithm but also the data set it was applied to. This makes the comparison of newly developed tools to previously published approaches difficult. Either researchers need to implement others' algorithms first, to establish an adequate benchmark on their data, or a direct comparison of new and old techniques is infeasible. The Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation (ISLES) challenge, which has ran now consecutively for 3 years, aims to address this problem of comparability. ISLES 2016 and 2017 focused on lesion outcome prediction after ischemic stroke: By providing a uniformly pre-processed data set, researchers from all over the world could apply their algorithm directly. A total of nine teams participated in ISLES 2015, and 15 teams participated in ISLES 2016. Their performance was evaluated in a fair and transparent way to identify the state-of-the-art among all submissions. Top ranked teams almost always employed deep learning tools, which were predominately convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Despite the great efforts, lesion outcome prediction persists challenging. The annotated data set remains publicly available and new approaches can be compared directly via the online evaluation system, serving as a continuing benchmark (www.isles-challenge.org).

Pediatric patients presenting with clinical symptoms and MRI findings highly suggestive of NMO but with high and persisting MOG-IgG antibody titers are most likely to represent a distinct subgroup of acute demyelinating diseases with important clinical and therapeutic implications.