ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
A unified medical image segmentation evaluation method combining multi-metrics and confidence.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advancement of evaluation methodologies for medical image segmentation models has not kept pace with the development of the models themselves. Current technologies encounter challenges related to complexity and uncertainty, which hinder their efficacy in guiding clinical practice. This study aims to provide a comprehensive framework for quantifying the overall capabilities of medical image segmentation models. We propose a unified approach that facilitates the simultaneous assessment of prediction accuracy and reliability. Based on monotonic rank agreement, we integrate various accuracy metrics alongside confidence levels derived from multi-organ segmentation results to compute a final comprehensive score. The obtained scores can be used for an intuitive comparison of models: models with higher scores mean both high accuracy and high reliability, making them more clinically applicable. We conducted extensive experiments on six different medical image segmentation models and compared them from four perspectives: accuracy, reliability estimation, usable region estimation, and our proposed assessment pipeline. Experimental results verify that our method delivers more interpretable quantitative metrics to assess the practical comprehensive performance of segmentation models than the single-metric methods. The code has been released on GitHub ( https://github.com/SCUT-ML-GUO/MOMAI ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42734727What 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.