MitoEM / README.md
Parth1503's picture
Upload dataset
6387a07 verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
10.4 kB
---
license: cc-by-4.0
task_categories:
- image-segmentation
tags:
- medical
- biomedical
- electron-microscopy
- ssem
- connectomics
- mitochondria
- instance-segmentation
- 3d-segmentation
- brain
- cortex
- miccai
- mitoem
pretty_name: MitoEM - 3D mitochondria instance segmentation in ssSEM (labeled half)
size_categories:
- 1K<n<10K
dataset_info:
config_name: preview
features:
- name: sample_id
dtype: string
- name: subset
dtype: string
- name: organism
dtype: string
- name: split
dtype: string
- name: z
dtype: int32
- name: n_instances
dtype: int32
- name: fg_fraction
dtype: float32
- name: image
dtype: image
- name: mask
dtype: image
- name: overlay
dtype: image
splits:
- name: train
num_bytes: 268684200
num_examples: 80
- name: val
num_bytes: 67196014
num_examples: 20
download_size: 335902375
dataset_size: 335880214
configs:
- config_name: preview
data_files:
- split: train
path: preview/train-*
- split: val
path: preview/val-*
---
# MitoEM (publicly-labeled half)
**MitoEM***A Large-scale 3D Mitochondria Instance Segmentation Dataset from
Electron Microscopy* (Wei et al., **MICCAI 2020**). Two (30 µm)³ tissue blocks
imaged by **serial-section multi-beam SEM (ssSEM)** at **8 × 8 × 30 nm**, one from
**rat** and one from **human** cortex, densely annotated for mitochondria
**instances**.
> **This mirror = the 500 publicly-labeled slices per subset (z 0–499).**
> Each source volume is 1000 × 4096 × 4096 voxels, but only the first half
> carries public ground truth. Slices z 500–999 form the challenge **test** half
> and their labels are **withheld** by the organizers (server-side evaluation at
> [mitoem.grand-challenge.org](https://mitoem.grand-challenge.org/)). They are
> omitted here because they cannot be evaluated offline and would double the
> download for no benchmark value.
## Dataset Details
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Modality | Serial-section multi-beam SEM (ssSEM) |
| Resolution | 8 × 8 × 30 nm (x, y, z) |
| Task | Mitochondria **instance** segmentation (binary semantic = `label > 0`) |
| Subsets | `MitoEM-R` (rat), `MitoEM-H` (human) |
| Slices | **500 per subset**`train` z 0–399, `val` z 400–499 |
| Slice size | 4096 × 4096 |
| Images | 8-bit grayscale PNG |
| Masks | uint16 TIFF (deflate), `0` = background, non-zero = instance ID |
| Instances | ≈10.5 k (human) / ≈5.4 k (rat) in the labeled range; ~350–390 per slice |
| License | **CC BY 4.0** (layered — see below; upstream tags the *annotations* MIT) |
| Source | `pytc/EM30` (images) + `pytc/MitoEM` (labels) — the authors' own org |
## License — CC BY 4.0, not MIT
Both upstream repos declare **MIT**, but that covers the challenge's
**annotations**, not the underlying imagery. `MitoEM-H` is the `EM30-H` human
cortex volume, which is understood to derive from the **H01** human cortex
release (Shapson-Coe et al.) under **CC BY 4.0** — the attribution applied by
[`MedOtter/AxonEM`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/MedOtter/AxonEM), which is
served from the *same* `pytc/EM30` archive. This mirror is therefore tagged with
the most restrictive governing layer, `cc-by-4.0`, for consistency.
*Provenance of that call:* the H01 lineage is an upstream-attribution finding
carried over from AxonEM, not something re-derived here; the MICCAI 2020 paper
itself says only "human frontal lobe, Layer II". Tagging CC BY 4.0 is safe in
either case — if the imagery were governed solely by the upstream MIT tag, CC BY
4.0 merely imposes a stricter attribution duty than required.
Both licences are permissive and redistribution-friendly; only the attribution
obligation differs. `MitoEM-R`'s rat volume has no separately adjudicated
upstream, so CC BY 4.0 is applied uniformly as the conservative choice.
**Attribution required:** cite the two MitoEM papers below, and credit the H01
human cortex release for `MitoEM-H`.
## Repository structure
```
MitoEM-H/
im/im0000.png … im0499.png # 4096×4096 uint8
mito-train-v2/seg0000.tif … seg0399.tif # 4096×4096 uint16 instance IDs
mito-val-v2/seg0400.tif … seg0499.tif
MitoEM-R/
im/… mito-train-v2/… mito-val-v2/…
train.jsonl # canonical per-slice index
val.jsonl
dataset_metadata.json
```
Image `im{N}.png` pairs with mask `seg{N}.tif` for the same `N`**both subsets
are already spatially aligned at 4096 × 4096**, so no cropping or offsetting is
needed on read.
### `train.jsonl` record schema
```json
{"sample_id": "MitoEM-H_z0000", "subset": "MitoEM-H", "organism": "human",
"split": "train", "z": 0,
"image": "MitoEM-H/im/im0000.png",
"mask": "MitoEM-H/mito-train-v2/seg0000.tif",
"shape": [4096, 4096], "n_instances": 386, "fg_fraction": 0.0508}
```
## ⚠️ Geometry note — the upstream padding convention is not what it looks like
The upstream human images ship as `EM30-H-im-pad.zip`: **1040 slices of
5120 × 5120**, while its labels are 500 slices of 4096 × 4096. The convention
implied by AxonEM's directory name (`pad-20-512-512`) suggests the label frame
sits at `[z+20, 512:4608, 512:4608]`. **It does not.** A 2D offset search scoring
image/mask intensity contrast against the known-aligned rat subset peaks sharply
at **(0, 0)**:
| candidate | contrast |
|---|---|
| **offset (0, 0)** | **+38.80** ← peak (decays to +25.7 by just 16 px) |
| offset (512, 512) | −1.32 |
| *shifted negative control* | −1.65 |
The z offset is 0 as well. The padding is appended at the **far** edges
(1000→1040 in z, 4096→5120 in y/x), so the padded volume's origin coincides with
the nominal origin — which reconciles with AxonEM's crop origins
(y/x ∈ {0, 1792, 3584} + 1536 = 5120; z 950 + 90 = 1040). `pad-20-512-512`
describes each AxonEM *crop's* internal margin, not a base-volume offset.
**This mirror stores both subsets already cropped and aligned**, so readers never
encounter the issue. It is documented only so the mirror can be reconciled
against upstream.
Two further upstream quirks handled during preparation, noted for anyone going
back to the source: `EM30-R-im.zip` ships 1001 `__MACOSX` AppleDouble entries
that a naive `glob("*.png")` double-counts to 2000 slices; and the label TIFFs are
*internally uncompressed* (33.5 MB each) with the zip's deflate doing all the
work, so extracting them verbatim yields 33.5 GB of masks. They are re-encoded
here as deflate TIFF (losslessly identical, ~120 KB each).
## Ground truth
**v2** instance labels — the corrected release used by the IEEE TMI 2023
challenge report. `0` = background; every non-zero value is a mitochondrion
instance ID. There are **no competing rater or auto-generated tiers**, so no
gold-standard tier selection is required.
- IDs are **volume-global and sparse** — they are *not* contiguous within a slice
(e.g. a human slice with 386 instances has IDs up to 19245). Do not assume
`max(id) == n_instances`.
- For **binary semantic** mitochondria segmentation use `mask > 0`.
- Annotated instances have a minimum size of **2000 voxels**.
- "Mitochondria-on-a-string" (MOAS) and the small/medium/large size bins from the
paper are **evaluation strata for error analysis, not stored label classes**.
## ⚠️ Relationship to AxonEM (benchmark non-independence)
`MitoEM-H` and **`AxonEM-Human` are the same image volume** (`EM30-H`) — both
challenges serve the human images from the identical upstream archive. AxonEM is
already mirrored at `MedOtter/AxonEM`, where the human subset is 9 crops of that
volume (`EM30-H-train-9vol-pad-20-512-512`, files `im_{z}-{y}-{x}_pad.h5`).
Using AxonEM's crop origins and the (0, 0) alignment established above, 5 of its
9 human crops intersect MitoEM's public labeled range: the four at `z=0` and the
one at `z=475`; the four at `z=950` fall in MitoEM's withheld test half.
The **annotation targets differ** (axons vs mitochondria), so this is not label
leakage — but the two are **not statistically independent benchmarks**, and a
model tuned on one has seen the other's pixels. There is no cross-reference ID
column; the join key is the `EM30-H` voxel origin embedded in AxonEM's filenames.
**`MitoEM-R` is unaffected.** AxonEM's other volume is `EM30-M` (mouse,
40 × 8 × 8 nm, 750 valid slices) — a different acquisition.
No overlap with the other EM/microscopy sets in this suite (NucMM, UroCell,
CREMI, 3D-Platelet-EM, SELMA3D), nor with Lucchi/EPFL or Kasthuri++ — the latter
is *mouse* somatosensory cortex at 12 × 12 × 30 nm, a different species, region
and resolution from MitoEM-R's rat V1.
## Source & citation
- Challenge: https://mitoem.grand-challenge.org/
- Images: https://huggingface.co/datasets/pytc/EM30
- Labels: https://huggingface.co/datasets/pytc/MitoEM
- Code: https://github.com/donglaiw/MitoEM-challenge
The organizers ask that **both** papers be cited:
```bibtex
@inproceedings{wei2020mitoem,
author = {Wei, Donglai and Lin, Zudi and Franco-Barranco, Daniel and
Wendt, Nils and Liu, Xingyu and Yin, Wenjie and Huang, Xin and
Gupta, Aarush and Jang, Won-Dong and Wang, Xueying and
Arganda-Carreras, Ignacio and Lichtman, Jeff W. and Pfister, Hanspeter},
title = {{MitoEM} Dataset: Large-Scale 3D Mitochondria Instance
Segmentation from {EM} Images},
booktitle = {Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI)},
series = {LNCS}, volume = {12265}, pages = {66--76}, year = {2020},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-59722-1_7}
}
@article{shapsoncoe2024h01,
author = {Shapson-Coe, Alexander and Januszewski, Micha{\l} and Berger, Daniel R. and others},
title = {A petavoxel fragment of human cerebral cortex reconstructed at nanoscale resolution},
journal = {Science},
volume = {384}, number = {6696}, pages = {eadk4858}, year = {2024},
doi = {10.1126/science.adk4858}
}
@article{francobarranco2023mitoem,
author = {Franco-Barranco, Daniel and Lin, Zudi and Jang, Won-Dong and others},
title = {Current Progress and Challenges in Large-Scale 3D Mitochondria
Instance Segmentation},
journal = {IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging},
volume = {42}, number = {12}, pages = {3956--3971}, year = {2023},
doi = {10.1109/TMI.2023.3320497}
}
```