ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
Metric discordance under MIDOG++ domain shift: a leave-one-domain-out audit of F1, emitted-detection confidence calibration, and ROI count error.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mitotic-figure detectors are usually evaluated by detection accuracy, but use also depends on confidence and count reliability under domain shift. Methods: We evaluated MIDOG++ with leave-one-domain-out testing across seven domains. Adaptive-bin detection expected calibration error (D-ECE1) measured the bin-mass-weighted mean absolute confidence-precision gap among post-non-maximum suppression detections retained at a 0.05 score floor; centroid-distance matching supplied the true positive/false positive labels. F1 and count error were evaluated at the fixed 0.5 operating threshold. Baseline and domain-adversarial RetinaNet arms were compared as a controlled perturbation, with exploratory domain-composition resampling and two secondary seeds. Results: No directionally stable aggregate calibration advantage was established across three seed series. In the primary series, macro D-ECE1 was 0.0786 for baseline and 0.0741 for the domain-adversarial arm (paired difference, -0.0045), but two additional seed series produced paired differences of +0.0287 and -0.0068. A provenance audit confirmed the secondary series were generated under the locked protocol; they were reported as a sensitivity comparison and were not pooled with the primary point estimate. The fixed-domain case-bootstrap interval was below zero, whereas exploratory domain-composition resampling crossed zero (-0.0213 to +0.0112). The two domains with F1 gains had worse D-ECE1. Lymphoma/lymphosarcoma had the highest observed D-ECE1 in both arms and was systematically undercounted. Conclusions: In this benchmark, F1, emitted-detection calibration, count behavior, and maximum observed-domain D-ECE1 were not interchangeable endpoints. The tested domain-adversarial configuration did not establish a directionally stable calibration benefit. Evaluations should report detection-specific calibration, retained-detection denominators, count consequences, and finite-benchmark observed-domain D-ECE1 alongside F1.
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.