Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42645940›Full record

ReviewJournal of imaging2026

Uncertainty Quantification in Medical Image Segmentation: A Comprehensive Survey.

Seyed Sina Ziaee, Katie Ovens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Seyed Sina ZiaeeDepartment of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada.
Katie OvensDepartment of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2023-04245
6 · The paper itself

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

aleatoric uncertaintyBayesian methodsdeep ensemblesdeterministic uncertainty methodsepistemic uncertaintyhybrid modelsmedical image segmentationMonte Carlo dropouttest-time data augmentationuncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID42645940
PMCPMC13514988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.