Pith. sign in

REVIEW

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 2308.07506 v1 pith:OE7SCHMU submitted 2023-08-15 eess.IV cs.CV

Benchmarking Scalable Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification in Organ Segmentation

classification eess.IV cs.CV
keywords uncertaintyepistemicorgansegmentationbenchmarkingcomprehensivemethodmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep learning based methods for automatic organ segmentation have shown promise in aiding diagnosis and treatment planning. However, quantifying and understanding the uncertainty associated with model predictions is crucial in critical clinical applications. While many techniques have been proposed for epistemic or model-based uncertainty estimation, it is unclear which method is preferred in the medical image analysis setting. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmarking study that evaluates epistemic uncertainty quantification methods in organ segmentation in terms of accuracy, uncertainty calibration, and scalability. We provide a comprehensive discussion of the strengths, weaknesses, and out-of-distribution detection capabilities of each method as well as recommendations for future improvements. These findings contribute to the development of reliable and robust models that yield accurate segmentations while effectively quantifying epistemic uncertainty.

discussion (0)

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