ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Segmenting with confidence through uncertainty quantification for brain tumor imaging.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major barrier to clinical adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) for brain tumor monitoring is the lack of calibrated uncertainty in automated segmentation, limiting clinician trust. We developed a deep learning framework that generates uncertainty estimates for meningioma segmentation on brain MRI. Evidential deep learning ensembles were trained on 1655 post-contrast T1-weighted MRIs (788 patients) to capture aleatoric-like and epistemic-like uncertainty. Architecturally homogeneous and heterogeneous ensembles were evaluated on an independent test set of 68 MRIs (43 patients) and compared with existing methods. Performance was assessed using Dice similarity coefficient, spatial agreement between uncertainty maps and neuroradiologist-identified ambiguous regions, and calibration of volumetric credible intervals. The model achieved high accuracy (median Dice 0.93), with uncertainty maps aligning with ambiguous regions and well-calibrated volume estimates. External validation in 353 patients confirmed generalizability (median Dice 0.92), supporting safer clinical AI deployment and enabling calibrated uncertainty estimation for lesion segmentation beyond meningiomas.
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.