ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2026
CalDiff: Calibrating Uncertainty and Accessing Reliability of Diffusion Models for Trustworthy Lesion Segmentation.
Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty quantification for artificial intelligence in medical imaging: what every radiologist needs to know.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Advances and Opportunities in NIR-II Endoscopy: From Diagnosis to Therapeutic Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- MLHNet-Lung: an attention-guided multi-level CNN-transformer fusion framework with CBAM and GeM pooling for explainable multiclass lung CT image classification.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low reliability has consistently been a challenge in the application of deep learning models for high-risk decision-making scenarios. In medical image segmentation, multiple expert annotations can be consulted to reduce subjective bias and reach a consensus, thereby enhancing the segmentation accuracy and reliability. To develop a reliable lesion segmentation model, we propose CalDiff, a novel framework that can leverage the uncertainty from multiple annotations, capture real-world diagnostic variability and provide more informative predictions. To harness the superior generative ability of diffusion models, a dual step-wise and sequence-aware calibration mechanism is proposed on the basis of the sequential nature of diffusion models. We evaluate the calibrated model through a comprehensive quantitative and visual analysis, addressing the previously overlooked challenge of assessing uncertainty calibration and model reliability in scenarios with multiple annotations and multiple predictions. Experimental results on two lesion segmentation datasets demonstrate that CalDiff produces uncertainty maps that can reflect low confidence areas, further indicating the false predictions made by the model. By calibrating the uncertainty in the training phase, the uncertain areas produced by our model are closely correlated with areas where the model has made errors in the inference. In summary, the uncertainty captured by CalDiff can serve as a powerful indicator, which can help mitigate the risks of adopting model's outputs, allowing clinicians to prioritize reviewing areas or slices with higher uncertainty and enhancing the model's reliability and trustworthiness in clinical practice.
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.