mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

USE-Evaluator: Performance Metrics for Medical Image Segmentation Models with Uncertain, Small or Empty Reference Annotations

arXiv 2209.13008 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2022eess.IV cs.CV cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Performance metrics for medical image segmentation models are used to measure the agreement between the reference annotation and the predicted segmentation. Usually, overlap metrics, such as the Dice, are used as a metric to evaluate the performance of these models in order for results to be comparable. However, there is a mismatch between the distributions of cases and difficulty level of segmentation tasks in public data sets compared to clinical practice. Common metrics fail to measure the impact of this mismatch, especially for clinical data sets that include low signal pathologies, a difficult segmentation task, and uncertain, small, or empty reference annotations. This limitation may result in ineffective research of machine learning practitioners in designing and optimizing models. Dimensions of evaluating clinical value include consideration of the uncertainty of reference annotations, independence from reference annotation volume size, and evaluation of classification of empty reference annotations. We study how uncertain, small, and empty reference annotations influence the value of metrics for medical image segmentation on an in-house data set regardless of the model. We examine metrics behavior on the predictions of a standard deep learning framework in order to identify metrics with clinical value. We compare to a public benchmark data set (BraTS 2019) with a high-signal pathology and certain, larger, and no empty reference annotations. We may show machine learning practitioners, how uncertain, small, or empty reference annotations require a rethinking of the evaluation and optimizing procedures. The evaluation code was released to encourage further analysis of this topic. https://github.com/SophieOstmeier/UncertainSmallEmpty.git

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2022.

Builds on

12 of 50 references.

References · 12

  1. 2018Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challengecited by 508
  2. 2021Boundary IoU: Improving Object-Centric Image Segmentation Evaluationcited by 186
  3. 2019Deep learning with noisy labels: exploring techniques and remedies in medical image analysiscited by 173
  4. 2019Automated brain extraction of multi-sequence MRI using artificial neural networkscited by 133
  5. 2019Standardized Assessment of Automatic Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities and Results of the WMH Segmentation Challengecited by 115
  6. 2018Deep learning to achieve clinically applicable segmentation of head and neck anatomy for radiotherapycited by 76
  7. 2019Optimizing the Dice Score and Jaccard Index for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory & Practicecited by 71
  8. 2018On the Effect of Inter-observer Variability for a Reliable Estimation of Uncertainty of Medical Image Segmentationcited by 46
  9. 2021QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 Challenge on Quantifying Uncertainty in Brain Tumor Segmentation - Analysis of Ranking Scores and Benchmarking Resultscited by 28
  10. 2017Fully Automatic Segmentation of Lumbar Vertebrae from CT Images using Cascaded 3D Fully Convolutional Networkscited by 11
  11. 2021Automatic Cerebral Vessel Extraction in TOF-MRA Using Deep Learningcited by 3
  12. 2019Deep-Learning for Tidemark Segmentation in Human Osteochondral Tissues Imaged with Micro-computed Tomographycited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

3 papers.