Calibration and Uncertainty for multiRater Volume Assessment in multiorgan Segmentation (CURVAS) challenge results

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08685v1
• Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 15:45:44 GMT
• Title: Calibration and Uncertainty for multiRater Volume Assessment in multiorgan Segmentation (CURVAS) challenge results
• Authors: Meritxell Riera-Marin, Sikha O K, Julia Rodriguez-Comas, Matthias Stefan May, Zhaohong Pan, Xiang Zhou, Xiaokun Liang, Franciskus Xaverius Erick, Andrea Prenner, Cedric Hemon, Valentin Boussot, Jean-Louis Dillenseger, Jean-Claude Nunes, Abdul Qayyum, Moona Mazher, Steven A Niederer, Kaisar Kushibar, Carlos Martin-Isla, Petia Radeva, Karim Lekadir, Theodore Barfoot, Luis C. Garcia Peraza Herrera, Ben Glocker, Tom Vercauteren, Lucas Gago, Justin Englemann, Joy-Marie Kleiss, Anton Aubanell, Andreu Antolin, Javier Garcia-Lopez, Miguel A. Gonzalez Ballester, Adrian Galdran,
• Abstract summary: Deep learning (DL) has become the dominant approach for medical image segmentation.<n>This challenge highlights the critical role of multiple annotators in establishing a more comprehensive ground truth.<n>We evaluate how DL models handle uncertainty and whether their confidence estimates align with true segmentation performance.
• Score: 13.916536022733084
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Deep learning (DL) has become the dominant approach for medical image segmentation, yet ensuring the reliability and clinical applicability of these models requires addressing key challenges such as annotation variability, calibration, and uncertainty estimation. This is why we created the Calibration and Uncertainty for multiRater Volume Assessment in multiorgan Segmentation (CURVAS), which highlights the critical role of multiple annotators in establishing a more comprehensive ground truth, emphasizing that segmentation is inherently subjective and that leveraging inter-annotator variability is essential for robust model evaluation. Seven teams participated in the challenge, submitting a variety of DL models evaluated using metrics such as Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Expected Calibration Error (ECE), and Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS). By incorporating consensus and dissensus ground truth, we assess how DL models handle uncertainty and whether their confidence estimates align with true segmentation performance. Our findings reinforce the importance of well-calibrated models, as better calibration is strongly correlated with the quality of the results. Furthermore, we demonstrate that segmentation models trained on diverse datasets and enriched with pre-trained knowledge exhibit greater robustness, particularly in cases deviating from standard anatomical structures. Notably, the best-performing models achieved high DSC and well-calibrated uncertainty estimates. This work underscores the need for multi-annotator ground truth, thorough calibration assessments, and uncertainty-aware evaluations to develop trustworthy and clinically reliable DL-based medical image segmentation models.

Related papers

• Metrics that matter: Evaluating image quality metrics for medical image generation [48.85783422900129]
  This study comprehensively assesses commonly used no-reference image quality metrics using brain MRI data.<n>We evaluate metric sensitivity to a range of challenges, including noise, distribution shifts, and, critically, morphological alterations designed to mimic clinically relevant inaccuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T01:57:25Z)
• Efficient Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation in Cerebrovascular Segmentation [1.3980986259786223]
  We introduce an efficient ensemble model combining the advantages of Bayesian Approximation and Deep Ensembles.<n>Areas of high model uncertainty and erroneous predictions are aligned which demonstrates the effectiveness and reliability of the approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T09:39:37Z)
• Enhancing Healthcare LLM Trust with Atypical Presentations Recalibration [20.049443396032423]
  Black-box large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in various environments. LLMs often exhibit overconfidence, leading to potential risks and misjudgments. We propose a novel method, textitAtypical presentations Recalibration, which leverages atypical presentations to adjust the model's confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T03:45:35Z)
• Dynamic Correlation Learning and Regularization for Multi-Label Confidence Calibration [60.95748658638956]
  This paper introduces the Multi-Label Confidence task, aiming to provide well-calibrated confidence scores in multi-label scenarios. Existing single-label calibration methods fail to account for category correlations, which are crucial for addressing semantic confusion. We propose the Dynamic Correlation Learning and Regularization algorithm, which leverages multi-grained semantic correlations to better model semantic confusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T13:26:21Z)
• EDUE: Expert Disagreement-Guided One-Pass Uncertainty Estimation for Medical Image Segmentation [1.757276115858037]
  This paper proposes an Expert Disagreement-Guided Uncertainty Estimation (EDUE) for medical image segmentation. By leveraging variability in ground-truth annotations from multiple raters, we guide the model during training and incorporate random sampling-based strategies to enhance calibration confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T10:13:52Z)
• Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency [76.23956851098598]
  We explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. We offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T16:15:20Z)
• On the Calibration of Large Language Models and Alignment [63.605099174744865]
  Confidence calibration serves as a crucial tool for gauging the reliability of deep models. We conduct a systematic examination of the calibration of aligned language models throughout the entire construction process. Our work sheds light on whether popular LLMs are well-calibrated and how the training process influences model calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T08:57:55Z)
• Towards Better Certified Segmentation via Diffusion Models [62.21617614504225]
  segmentation models can be vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, which hinders their use in critical-decision systems like healthcare or autonomous driving. Recently, randomized smoothing has been proposed to certify segmentation predictions by adding Gaussian noise to the input to obtain theoretical guarantees. In this paper, we address the problem of certifying segmentation prediction using a combination of randomized smoothing and diffusion models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T16:30:39Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical Image Segmentation by utilizing Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty [52.03490691733464]
  We introduce DEviS, an easily implementable foundational model that seamlessly integrates into various medical image segmentation networks. By leveraging subjective logic theory, we explicitly model probability and uncertainty for the problem of medical image segmentation. DeviS incorporates an uncertainty-aware filtering module, which utilizes the metric of uncertainty-calibrated error to filter reliable data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-01T05:02:46Z)
• BSM loss: A superior way in modeling aleatory uncertainty of fine_grained classification [0.0]
  We propose a modified Bootstrapping loss(BS loss) function with Mixup data augmentation strategy. Our experiments indicated that BS loss with Mixup(BSM) model can halve the Expected Error(ECE) compared to standard data augmentation. BSM model is able to perceive the semantic distance of out-of-domain data, demonstrating high potential in real-world clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-09T13:06:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.