Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

The subjectivity analysis depicts the relationship between the relative intensity difference of a florescent feature (ROI) to the background and the annotation count of human experts. A visual interpretation indicates that the annotation probability of a ROI is positively correlated with its relative relative intensity. The relative intensity difference is calculated as µ_inner–µ_outer/µ_inner where µ_inner is the mean signal intensity of the ROIs and µ_outer the mean signal intensity of its nearby outer area. We considered matching ROIs at an IoU threshold of t=0.5. The expert in the title of the respective plot was used to create the region proposals of the ROIs, that is, the annotations served as origin for the other pairwise comparisons. (A) Legend of color codes: blue depicts that a ROI was only annotated by one or more human experts; yellow depicts the ROIs that were present in the estimated ground truth; green shows the ROIs that are only present in an exemplary consensus ensemble; pink depicts ROIs that are present in both estimated ground truth and consensus ensemble (B–I) All calculations are performed on the test set (n = 9 images) which was withheld from model training and validation. (B–F) The individual expert analysis shows the effects of different heuristic evaluation criteria. (G) The analysis of the est. GT annotations reveals the limitations of the ground truth estimation algorithm, which is based on the human annotations. An expert count of zero can result from merging different ROIs. (H) The analysis of a representative consensus ensemble shows that human annotators may have missed several ROIs (green) even with a large relative difference to the background. (I) Cumulative summary of B-F.