Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Uncertainty quantification in medical image segmentation with normalizing flows

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2006.02683 v2 pith:WF5CUDIJ submitted 2020-06-04 stat.ML cs.CVcs.LG

Uncertainty quantification in medical image segmentation with normalizing flows

classification stat.ML cs.CVcs.LG
keywords modelsegmentationconditionalcflowcvaemedicaluncertaintydistributions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Medical image segmentation is inherently an ambiguous task due to factors such as partial volumes and variations in anatomical definitions. While in most cases the segmentation uncertainty is around the border of structures of interest, there can also be considerable inter-rater differences. The class of conditional variational autoencoders (cVAE) offers a principled approach to inferring distributions over plausible segmentations that are conditioned on input images. Segmentation uncertainty estimated from samples of such distributions can be more informative than using pixel level probability scores. In this work, we propose a novel conditional generative model that is based on conditional Normalizing Flow (cFlow). The basic idea is to increase the expressivity of the cVAE by introducing a cFlow transformation step after the encoder. This yields improved approximations of the latent posterior distribution, allowing the model to capture richer segmentation variations. With this we show that the quality and diversity of samples obtained from our conditional generative model is enhanced. Performance of our model, which we call cFlow Net, is evaluated on two medical imaging datasets demonstrating substantial improvements in both qualitative and quantitative measures when compared to a recent cVAE based model.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.