ReviewJournal of imaging2026
Uncertainty Quantification in Medical Image Segmentation: A Comprehensive Survey.
Review in Journal of imaging, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) in medical image segmentation is essential for ensuring the reliability and interpretability of deep learning models in clinical decision-making. While convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and transformer-based architectures have achieved remarkable segmentation performance, they often provide deterministic outputs without accounting for uncertainty, which can lead to overconfident predictions in ambiguous cases. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of UQ techniques in medical image segmentation, categorizing existing approaches into Bayesian methods, deep ensembles, deterministic methods, test-time data augmentation, and hybrid models, while treating foundation-model-based UQ as a separate cross-cutting category. We examine key methodologies, including Monte Carlo dropout, Bayesian neural networks, variational inference, and ensemble learning, discussing their advantages and limitations in addressing aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Additionally, we explore the clinical relevance of UQ by reviewing its applications in brain tumor segmentation, cardiac imaging, lung nodule detection, and other medical domains. The paper also highlights key evaluation metrics, such as calibration errors, uncertainty-error correlation, and visual interpretability, to assess the effectiveness of UQ methods. Finally, we discuss challenges and future research directions, emphasizing the need for scalable, interpretable, and clinically actionable uncertainty quantification strategies to improve trust in AI-assisted medical image analysis.
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.