VIDS-Seg: Towards Reliable Uncertainty Quantification in Pediatric Cardiac Ultrasound Segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reliable clinical deployment of machine learning requires models that know when they are likely to fail, particularly for subgroups underrepresented in training data. A common case is pediatric care, where models trained on adult cohorts can silently under-perform on children with no indication that something has gone wrong. As retraining with labeled pediatric data is often infeasible, detecting such failures at inference time is a critical clinical need. Building on the VIDS (Variational Inference under Distribution Shifts) framework, we introduce VIDS-Seg, which applies amortized variational inference over a lightweight prediction head to make this adaptive, OOD-aware prior tractable for dense image segmentation. We evaluate VIDS-Seg on left ventricular segmentation in echocardiography, a setting where pediatric anatomy differs systematically from the adult population most segmentation models are trained on, training on an adult cohort (EchoNet-Dynamic) and evaluating zero-shot on a pediatric cohort (EchoNet-Pediatric). Across all age strata, VIDS-Seg matches competitive baselines in segmentation accuracy while producing substantially higher spatial correspondence between predicted uncertainty and segmentation error, an advantage that persists even after applying temperature scaling to all baselines. Downstream, it yields more accurate and stable ejection fraction estimates and more reliable detection of cardiac malfunction in the infant subgroup. Our results indicate that OOD-aware uncertainty quantification can serve as a practical safety layer for deployed segmentation models, enabling detection of silent failures in underrepresented subgroups without retraining or additional labeled data.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.
Builds on
15 of 32 references.
References · 15
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,287
- 2021Generalized Out-of-Distribution Detection: A Surveycited by 802
- 2021A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 792
- 2020Out-of-Distribution Generalization via Risk Extrapolation (REx)cited by 742
- 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 288
- 2019PHiSeg: Capturing Uncertainty in Medical Image Segmentationcited by 128
- 2022Trustworthy clinical AI solutions: a unified review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning models for medical image analysiscited by 63
- 2023FUTURE-AI: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcarecited by 60
- 2023A Review of Uncertainty Estimation and its Application in Medical Imagingcited by 59
- 2024Out-of-distribution Detection in Medical Image Analysis: A surveycited by 22
Built on by
Not cited yet.