ArticlePloS one2025
Deep learning for deep learning performance: How much data is needed for segmentation in biomedical imaging?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Architectures for Automatic Tooth Segmentation in Panoramic Dental Radiographs: Balancing Accuracy and Computational Efficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Controlled comparative study of YOLOv8-Pose, YOLOv11-Pose, and Detectron2 for vertebrae detection and keypoint estimation.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) models are widely adopted in biomedical imaging, where image segmentation is increasingly recognized as a quantitative tool for extracting clinically meaningful information. However, model performance critically depends on dataset size and training configuration, including model capacity. Traditional sample size estimation methods are inadequate for DL due to its reliance on high-dimensional data and its nonlinear learning behavior. To address this gap, we propose a DL-specific framework to estimate the minimal dataset size required for stable segmentation performance. We validate this framework across two distinct clinical tasks: colorectal polyp segmentation from 2D endoscopic images (Kvasir-SEG) and glioma segmentation from 3D brain MRIs (BraTS 2020). We trained residual U-Nets-a simple, yet foundational architecture-across 200 configurations for Kvasir-SEG and 40 configurations for BraTS 2020, varying data subsets (2%-100% for the 2D task and 5%-100% for the 3D task). In both tasks, performance metrics such as the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) consistently improved with increasing data and depth, but gains invariably plateaued beyond approximately 80% data usage. The best configuration for polyp segmentation (6 layers, 100% data) achieved a DSC of 0.86, while the best for brain tumor segmentation reached a DSC of 0.79. Critically, we introduce a surrogate modeling pipeline using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks to predict these performance curves. A simple uni-directional LSTM model accurately forecasted the final DSC, accurately forecasting the final DSC with low mean absolute error across both tasks. These findings demonstrate that segmentation performance can be reliably estimated with lightweight models, suggesting that collecting a moderate amount of high-quality data is often sufficient for developing clinically viable DL models. Our framework provides a practical, empirical method for optimizing resource allocation in medical AI development.
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.