Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42734727›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026

A unified medical image segmentation evaluation method combining multi-metrics and confidence.

Qi Ye, Lihua Guo, Shuqin Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

3 authors.

Qi YeSchool of Electronic and Information Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510640, China.
Lihua GuoSchool of Electronic and Information Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510640, China. guolihua@scut.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4916-3930
Shuqin ChenSchool of He XiangNing Art and Design, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, 510225, China. 87545345@qq.com.

Funding

Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province 2022A1515011549Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province 2023A1515011104
6 · The paper itself

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

Medical Image segmentationModel evaluationMulti-metricsMulti-organ segmentation

Identifiers

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.