Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39469570›Full record

ArticleUncertainty for safe utilization of machine learning in medical imaging : 5th international workshop, UNSURE 2023, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 12, 2023, proceedings. UNSURE (Workshop) (5th : 2023...2023

Benchmarking Scalable Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification in Organ Segmentation.

Jadie Adams, Shireen Y Elhabian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Uncertainty for safe utilization of machine learning in medical imaging : 5th international workshop, UNSURE 2023, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 12, 2023, proceedings. UNSURE (Workshop) (5th : 2023..., 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Weakly Supervised Bayesian Shape Modeling from Unsegmented Medical Images.Shape in medical imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2024, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 6, 2024, Proceedings. ShapeMI (Workshop) (2024 : Marrakech, Morocco) · 2025
    Article
  2. Estimation and Analysis of Slice Propagation Uncertainty in 3D Anatomy Segmentation.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Jadie AdamsScientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, UT, USA.
Shireen Y ElhabianScientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, UT, USA.

Funding

Population-Based Shape and Biomechanical Analysis of Hip PathoanatomyR01EB016701 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ANDERSON, ANDREW EDWARD · 2013 to 2023
$3.6M
ShapeWorks in the CloudR01AR076120 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ELHABIAN, SHIREEN YOUSSEF · 2019 to 2024
$2.7M
New 3D and 4D Image-Based Clinical Measures of Atrial Structural and Functional Remodeling in Atrial FibrillationR01HL135568 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI CATES, JOSHUA E, ELHABIAN, SHIREEN YOUSSEF · 2017 to 2020
$1.4M
ShapeWorksStudio: An Integrative, User-Friendly, and Scalable Suite for Shape Representation and AnalysisU24EB029011 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ELHABIAN, SHIREEN YOUSSEF · 2019 to 2023
$1.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL135568NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR076120NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB016701NIBIB NIH HHS U24 EB029011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning based methods for automatic organ segmentation have shown promise in aiding diagnosis and treatment planning. However, quantifying and understanding the uncertainty associated with model predictions is crucial in critical clinical applications. While many techniques have been proposed for epistemic or model-based uncertainty estimation, it is unclear which method is preferred in the medical image analysis setting. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmarking study that evaluates epistemic uncertainty quantification methods in organ segmentation in terms of accuracy, uncertainty calibration, and scalability. We provide a comprehensive discussion of the strengths, weaknesses, and out-of-distribution detection capabilities of each method as well as recommendations for future improvements. These findings contribute to the development of reliable and robust models that yield accurate segmentations while effectively quantifying epistemic uncertainty.

Identifiers

PMID39469570
PMCPMC11514142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.