ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Three-Blind Validation Strategy of Deep Learning Models for Image Segmentation.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Image segmentation plays a central role in computer vision applications such as medical imaging, industrial inspection, and environmental monitoring. However, evaluating segmentation performance can be particularly challenging when ground truth is not clearly defined, as is often the case in tasks involving subjective interpretation. These challenges are amplified by inter- and intra-observer variability, which complicates the use of human annotations as a reliable reference. To address this, we propose a novel validation framework-referred to as the three-blind validation strategy-that enables rigorous assessment of segmentation models in contexts where subjectivity and label variability are significant. The core idea is to have a third independent expert, blind to the labeler identities, assess a shuffled set of segmentations produced by multiple human annotators and/or automated models. This allows for the unbiased evaluation of model performance and helps uncover patterns of disagreement that may indicate systematic issues with either human or machine annotations. The primary objective of this study is to introduce and demonstrate this validation strategy as a generalizable framework for robust model evaluation in subjective segmentation tasks. We illustrate its practical implementation in a mammography use case involving dense tissue segmentation while emphasizing its potential applicability to a broad range of segmentation scenarios.
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.