Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37778102›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2023

Latent Transformer Models for out-of-distribution detection.

Mark S Graham, Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Paul Wright, Walter Hugo Lopez Pinaya, Petteri Teikari, Ashay Patel, Jean-Marie U-King-Im, Yee H Mah, James T Teo, Hans Rolf Jäger and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Mark S GrahamDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: mark.graham@kcl.ac.uk.
Petru-Daniel TudosiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul WrightDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Walter Hugo Lopez PinayaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Petteri TeikariRetiSpec, Toronto, Canada.
Ashay PatelDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Jean-Marie U-King-ImKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Yee H MahDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK; King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
James T TeoKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, UK; Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Hans Rolf JägerInstitute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
David WerringStroke Research Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
Geraint ReesInstitute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Parashkev NachevInstitute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Sebastien OurselinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
M Jorge CardosoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T005351/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Any clinically-deployed image-processing pipeline must be robust to the full range of inputs it may be presented with. One popular approach to this challenge is to develop predictive models that can provide a measure of their uncertainty. Another approach is to use generative modelling to quantify the likelihood of inputs. Inputs with a low enough likelihood are deemed to be out-of-distribution and are not presented to the downstream predictive model. In this work, we evaluate several approaches to segmentation with uncertainty for the task of segmenting bleeds in 3D CT of the head. We show that these models can fail catastrophically when operating in the far out-of-distribution domain, often providing predictions that are both highly confident and wrong. We propose to instead perform out-of-distribution detection using the Latent Transformer Model: a VQ-GAN is used to provide a highly compressed latent representation of the input volume, and a transformer is then used to estimate the likelihood of this compressed representation of the input. We demonstrate this approach can identify images that are both far- and near- out-of-distribution, as well as provide spatial maps that highlight the regions considered to be out-of-distribution. Furthermore, we find a strong relationship between an image's likelihood and the quality of a model's segmentation on it, demonstrating that this approach is viable for filtering out unsuitable images.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedHumansProbabilityUncertaintyOut-of-distribution detectionSegmentationTransformersUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID37778102
PMCPMC10900071

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.