Can ultrasound confidence maps predict sonographers' labeling variability?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Measuring cross-sectional areas in ultrasound images is a standard tool to evaluate disease progress or treatment response. Often addressed today with supervised deep-learning segmentation approaches, existing solutions highly depend upon the quality of experts' annotations. However, the annotation quality in ultrasound is anisotropic and position-variant due to the inherent physical imaging principles, including attenuation, shadows, and missing boundaries, commonly exacerbated with depth. This work proposes a novel approach that guides ultrasound segmentation networks to account for sonographers' uncertainties and generate predictions with variability similar to the experts. We claim that realistic variability can reduce overconfident predictions and improve physicians' acceptance of deep-learning cross-sectional segmentation solutions. Our method provides CM's certainty for each pixel for minimal computational overhead as it can be precalculated directly from the image. We show that there is a correlation between low values in the confidence maps and expert's label uncertainty. Therefore, we propose to give the confidence maps as additional information to the networks. We study the effect of the proposed use of ultrasound CMs in combination with four state-of-the-art neural networks and in two configurations: as a second input channel and as part of the loss. We evaluate our method on 3D ultrasound datasets of the thyroid and lower limb muscles. Our results show ultrasound CMs increase the Dice score, improve the Hausdorff and Average Surface Distances, and decrease the number of isolated pixel predictions. Furthermore, our findings suggest that ultrasound CMs improve the penalization of uncertain areas in the ground truth data, thereby improving problematic interpolations. Our code and example data will be made public at https://github.com/IFL-CAMP/Confidence-segmentation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2023.
Builds on
18 of 26 references.
References · 18
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2018Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreascited by 1,420
- 2019When Does Label Smoothing Help?cited by 985
- 2021UNETR: Transformers for 3D Medical Image Segmentationcited by 954
- 2022MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcarecited by 438
- 2019PHiSeg: Capturing Uncertainty in Medical Image Segmentationcited by 128
- 2020Stochastic Segmentation Networks: Modelling Spatially Correlated Aleatoric Uncertaintycited by 100
- 2019DeepAtlas: Joint Semi-Supervised Learning of Image Registration and Segmentationcited by 66
- 2020Disentangling Human Error from the Ground Truth in Segmentation of Medical Imagescited by 58
- 2021Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Storycited by 58
- 2019Non-Parametric Calibration for Classificationcited by 57
6 more
- 2014Multi-Atlas Segmentation of Biomedical Images: A Surveycited by 56
- 2018On the Effect of Inter-observer Variability for a Reliable Estimation of Uncertainty of Medical Image Segmentationcited by 46
- 2021Spatially Varying Label Smoothing: Capturing Uncertainty from Expert Annotationscited by 31
- 2021Tracked 3D Ultrasound and Deep Neural Network-based Thyroid Segmentation reduce Interobserver Variability in Thyroid Volumetrycited by 29
- 2020Post Training Uncertainty Calibration of Deep Networks For Medical Image Segmentationcited by 19
- 2021Using Soft Labels to Model Uncertainty in Medical Image Segmentationcited by 18
Built on by
Not cited yet.