PULASki: Learning inter-rater variability using statistical distances to improve probabilistic segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In the domain of medical imaging, many supervised learning based methods for segmentation face several challenges such as high variability in annotations from multiple experts, paucity of labelled data and class imbalanced datasets. These issues may result in segmentations that lack the requisite precision for clinical analysis and can be misleadingly overconfident without associated uncertainty quantification. This work proposes the PULASki method as a computationally efficient generative tool for biomedical image segmentation that accurately captures variability in expert annotations, even in small datasets. This approach makes use of an improved loss function based on statistical distances in a conditional variational autoencoder structure (Probabilistic UNet), which improves learning of the conditional decoder compared to the standard cross-entropy particularly in class imbalanced problems. The proposed method was analysed for two structurally different segmentation tasks (intracranial vessel and multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion) and compare our results to four well-established baselines in terms of quantitative metrics and qualitative output. These experiments involve class-imbalanced datasets characterised by challenging features, including suboptimal signal-to-noise ratios and high ambiguity. Empirical results demonstrate the PULASKi method outperforms all baselines at the 5% significance level. Our experiments are also of the first to present a comparative study of the computationally feasible segmentation of complex geometries using 3D patches and the traditional use of 2D slices. The generated segmentations are shown to be much more anatomically plausible than in the 2D case, particularly for the vessel task.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Dec 2023.
Builds on
31 of 58 references.
References · 31
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
- 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,475
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2018Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreascited by 1,435
- 2018Demystifying MMD GANscited by 1,293
- 2019An Introduction to Variational Autoencoderscited by 1,000
- 2020A Review of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning: Techniques, Applications and Challengescited by 819
- 2021The Medical Segmentation Decathloncited by 628
- 2019Variational Autoencoders and Nonlinear ICA: A Unifying Frameworkcited by 503
- 2017Wasserstein Auto-Encoderscited by 373
- 2017Learning Generative Models with Sinkhorn Divergencescited by 314
19 more
- 2018A Probabilistic U-Net for Segmentation of Ambiguous Imagescited by 283
- 2016Efficient Multi-Scale 3D CNN with Fully Connected CRF for Accurate Brain Lesion Segmentationcited by 263
- 2014Efficient Object Localization Using Convolutional Networkscited by 227
- 2015Bayesian SegNet: Model Uncertainty in Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architectures for Scene Understandingcited by 218
- 2020TorchIO: A Python library for efficient loading, preprocessing, augmentation and patch-based sampling of medical images in deep learningcited by 177
- 2018A Novel Focal Tversky loss function with improved Attention U-Net for lesion segmentationcited by 172
- 2015On Wasserstein Two Sample Testing and Related Families of Nonparametric Testscited by 166
- 2019Deep learning for cardiac image segmentation: A reviewcited by 131
- 2020Stochastic Segmentation Networks: Modelling Spatially Correlated Aleatoric Uncertaintycited by 101
- 2019DropConnect Is Effective in Modeling Uncertainty of Bayesian Deep Networkscited by 92
- 2023Ambiguous Medical Image Segmentation using Diffusion Modelscited by 92
- 2021Is segmentation uncertainty useful?cited by 37
- 2020Deeply Uncertain: Comparing Methods of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning Algorithmscited by 34
- 2021Striking the Right Balance: Recall Loss for Semantic Segmentationcited by 19
- 2020Deep Bayesian Gaussian Processes for Uncertainty Estimation in Electronic Health Recordscited by 16
- 2019Deep Probabilistic Modeling of Glioma Growthcited by 11
- 2020DS6, Deformation-aware Semi-supervised Learning: Application to Small Vessel Segmentation with Noisy Training Datacited by 11
- 2020Quantifying the unknown impact of segmentation uncertainty on image-based simulationscited by 11
- 2022StRegA: Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Brain MRIs using a Compact Context-encoding Variational Autoencodercited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.