ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2025
Quantifying uncertainty in lung cancer segmentation with foundation models applied to mixed-domain datasets.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tumor-anchored deep feature random forests for out-of-distribution detection in lung cancer segmentation.Transactions on machine learning research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical image foundation models have shown the ability to segment organs and tumors with minimal fine-tuning. These models are typically evaluated on task-specific in-distribution (ID) datasets. However, reliable performance on ID datasets does not guarantee robust generalization on out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets. Importantly, once deployed for clinical use, it is impractical to have 'ground truth' delineations to assess ongoing performance drifts, especially when images fall into the OOD category due to different imaging protocols. Hence, we introduced a comprehensive set of computationally fast metrics to evaluate the performance of multiple foundation models (Swin UNETR, SimMIM, iBOT, SMIT) trained with self-supervised learning (SSL). All models were fine-tuned on identical datasets for lung tumor segmentation from computed tomography (CT) scans. SimMIM, iBOT, and SMIT used identical architecture, pretraining, and fine-tuning datasets to assess performance variations with the choice of pretext tasks used in SSL. The evaluation was performed on two public lung cancer datasets (LRAD: n = 140, 5Rater: n = 21) with different image acquisitions and tumor stages compared to training data (n = 317 public resource with stage III-IV lung cancers) and a public non-cancer dataset containing volumetric CT scans of patients with pulmonary embolism (n = 120). All models produced similarly accurate tumor segmentation on the lung cancer testing datasets. SMIT produced the highest F1-score (LRAD: 0.60, 5Rater: 0.64) and lowest entropy (LRAD: 0.06, 5Rater: 0.12), indicating higher tumor detection rate and confident segmentations. In the OOD dataset, SMIT misdetected the least number of tumors, marked by a median volume occupancy of 5.67 cc compared to the best method SimMIM of 9.97 cc. Our analysis shows that additional metrics such as entropy and volume occupancy may help better understand model performance on mixed domain datasets.
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.