ArticleBiomedicines2022
Uncertainty Quantification in Segmenting Tuberculosis-Consistent Findings in Frontal Chest X-rays.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty Quantification in Medical Image Segmentation: A Comprehensive Survey.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- The two-stage detection-after-segmentation model improves the accuracy of identifying subdiaphragmatic lesions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) methods have demonstrated superior performance in medical image segmentation tasks. However, selecting a loss function that conforms to the data characteristics is critical for optimal performance. Further, the direct use of traditional DL models does not provide a measure of uncertainty in predictions. Even high-quality automated predictions for medical diagnostic applications demand uncertainty quantification to gain user trust. In this study, we aim to investigate the benefits of (i) selecting an appropriate loss function and (ii) quantifying uncertainty in predictions using a VGG16-based-U-Net model with the Monto-Carlo (MCD) Dropout method for segmenting Tuberculosis (TB)-consistent findings in frontal chest X-rays (CXRs). We determine an optimal uncertainty threshold based on several uncertainty-related metrics. This threshold is used to select and refer highly uncertain cases to an expert. Experimental results demonstrate that (i) the model trained with a modified Focal Tversky loss function delivered superior segmentation performance (mean average precision (mAP): 0.5710, 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.4021,0.7399)), (ii) the model with 30 MC forward passes during inference further improved and stabilized performance (mAP: 0.5721, 95% CI: (0.4032,0.7410), and (iii) an uncertainty threshold of 0.7 is observed to be optimal to refer highly uncertain cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.