Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Touchstone Benchmark: Are We on the Right Way for Evaluating AI Algorithms for Medical Segmentation?

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 2411.03670 v2 pith:TAABGNYY submitted 2024-11-06 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords algorithmsbenchmarktestbenchmarksevaluatedhospitalsmedicalperformance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

How can we test AI performance? This question seems trivial, but it isn't. Standard benchmarks often have problems such as in-distribution and small-size test sets, oversimplified metrics, unfair comparisons, and short-term outcome pressure. As a consequence, good performance on standard benchmarks does not guarantee success in real-world scenarios. To address these problems, we present Touchstone, a large-scale collaborative segmentation benchmark of 9 types of abdominal organs. This benchmark is based on 5,195 training CT scans from 76 hospitals around the world and 5,903 testing CT scans from 11 additional hospitals. This diverse test set enhances the statistical significance of benchmark results and rigorously evaluates AI algorithms across various out-of-distribution scenarios. We invited 14 inventors of 19 AI algorithms to train their algorithms, while our team, as a third party, independently evaluated these algorithms on three test sets. In addition, we also evaluated pre-existing AI frameworks--which, differing from algorithms, are more flexible and can support different algorithms--including MONAI from NVIDIA, nnU-Net from DKFZ, and numerous other open-source frameworks. We are committed to expanding this benchmark to encourage more innovation of AI algorithms for the medical domain.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rethink Domain Generalization in Heterogeneous Sequence MRI Segmentation

    eess.IV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A semi-supervised pretraining method improves cross-sequence pancreas segmentation Dice from 43.55% to 70.39% (NU) and from 35.62% to 66.61% (IH) on the new PancreasDG benchmark.

Pith tools