Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41394428›Full record

ArticleRadiology advances2025

Benchmarking robustness of automated CT pancreas segmentation: achieving human-level reliability through human-in-the-loop optimization.

Felipe Oviedo, Felipe Lopez-Ramirez, Florent Tixier, Satomi Kawamoto, Alejandra Blanco, Rahul Dodhia, Ralph H Hruban, William B Weeks, Juan M Lavista Ferres, Elliot K Fishman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology advances, 2025. 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

11 authors.

Felipe OviedoAI for Good Lab, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 98052, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9480-6539
Felipe Lopez-RamirezDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1560-9172
Florent TixierDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.
Satomi KawamotoDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.
Alejandra BlancoDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1856-5184
Rahul DodhiaAI for Good Lab, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 98052, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3812-3906
Ralph H HrubanThe Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4554-5672
William B WeeksAI for Good Lab, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 98052, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9918-1360
Juan M Lavista FerresAI for Good Lab, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 98052, United States.
Elliot K FishmanDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.
Linda C ChuDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9729-2756

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Deep learning-based pancreas segmentation in CT has advanced rapidly yet remains evaluated primarily with mean overlap metrics that fail to capture robustness-defined as the proportion of cases reaching human-level performance. Models performing well on mean Dice or surface metrics can still fail unpredictably across scanners or anatomies. Because early detection and quantitative biomarkers rely on consistent segmentation, robustness is critical for clinical deployment. Purpose: To systematically evaluate the robustness of deep learning models for pancreas segmentation relative to human readers and to investigate an active learning strategy to improve reliability. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively assembled 903 venous-phase CT scans from patients with presumed normal-appearing pancreases and without known pancreatic disease (2005-2023), split into 803 for training/validation and 100 healthy test cases. Each test case had 4 independent human segmentations. Inter-reader variability on this healthy-only test set defined the empirical human distribution, providing an upper-bound estimate of robustness. We introduced a Fractional Threshold (FT) metric, measuring the proportion of model predictions exceeding the minimum human performance. Robustness was assessed across models trained from scratch, fine-tuned, or pretrained, including both normal and abnormal cases. An active learning approach identified high-uncertainty predictions for human revision. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and proportions Results: The best model, a 3-dimensional U-Net trained from scratch, achieved a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 0.88 ± 0.04 and Normalized Surface Dice (NSD) of 0.77 ± 0.09, approaching human-level segmentation (DSC = 0.89 ± 0.03; NSD = 0.75 ± 0.07). However, FT for DSC and NSD remained lower than human performance in most cases, indicating persistent model variability. Human-in-the-loop revision of acquisition-flagged outliers increased FT to 0.99, with an average time of 1.54 minutes per case, corresponding to a 23-fold workload reduction. Conclusion: Automated pancreas segmentation reduces workload but remains constrained by tail-case failures. Active learning enhances model reliability, bridging the gap between artificial intelligence and human-level performance.

Indexed as

3D organ segmentationartificial intelligenceCT scanmodel robustnesspancreas segmentation

Identifiers

PMID41394428
PMCPMC12701807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.