Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725483›Full record

ReviewBMC research notes2022

Towards a guideline for evaluation metrics in medical image segmentation.

Dominik Müller, Iñaki Soto-Rey, Frank Kramer

Abstract readLetterReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC research notes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 192 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
192citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

192 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Deep learning in MRI-guided radiation therapy: A systematic review.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. EffiSegNet: Advances in Automated Segmentation of Actinic Cheilitis and Lip Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Clinical Photographs.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Performance assessment of five artificial intelligence-based algorithms for automated tooth segmentation and labeling on intraoral scans.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

132 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dominik MüllerIT-Infrastructure for Translational Medical Research, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. dominik.mueller@informatik.uni-augsburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0838-9885
Iñaki Soto-ReyMedical Data Integration Center, Institute for Digital Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Frank KramerIT-Infrastructure for Translational Medical Research, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung FKZ01ZZ1804E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, research on artificial intelligence has seen rapid growth with deep learning models, especially in the field of medical image segmentation. Various studies demonstrated that these models have powerful prediction capabilities and achieved similar results as clinicians. However, recent studies revealed that the evaluation in image segmentation studies lacks reliable model performance assessment and showed statistical bias by incorrect metric implementation or usage. Thus, this work provides an overview and interpretation guide on the following metrics for medical image segmentation evaluation in binary as well as multi-class problems: Dice similarity coefficient, Jaccard, Sensitivity, Specificity, Rand index, ROC curves, Cohen's Kappa, and Hausdorff distance. Furthermore, common issues like class imbalance and statistical as well as interpretation biases in evaluation are discussed. As a summary, we propose a guideline for standardized medical image segmentation evaluation to improve evaluation quality, reproducibility, and comparability in the research field.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingGuidelines as TopicImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveBiomedical image segmentation; Semantic segmentation; Medical Image AnalysisEvaluationGuidelinePerformance assessmentReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID35725483
PMCPMC9208116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.