Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Modality-Independent Explainable Detection of Inaccurate Organ Segmentations Using Denoising Autoencoders

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A denoising autoencoder trained only on correct organ masks can flag inaccurate auto-segmentations across MR and CT by measuring the Dice loss between each mask and its reconstruction.

desk verdict A simple DAE-based QA method for organ segmentations that works in two clinical use cases, but the general detection claim rests on a noise model that only simulates patch-like errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12203 v1 pith:SPGQKVUP submitted 2025-04-16 eess.IV cs.CV

Levente Lippenszky , István Megyeri , Krisztian Koos , Zsófia Karancsi , Borbála Deák-Karancsi , András Frontó , Árpád Makk , Attila Rádics
show 2 more authors
Erhan Bas László Ruskó
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords denoisingautoencoderorganatrisksegmentationqualityassuranceradiationtherapyplanningexplainabilityDicelossmodalityindependencemedicalimage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a denoising autoencoder trained only on correct, ground-truth organ masks can act as a post-hoc quality check for automatic organ segmentations in radiation therapy planning. At inference, an organ mask is scored by the Dice loss, a standard overlap-based error measure, between the mask and the mask the autoencoder reconstructs; a high score flags a likely inaccurate contour, and the reconstruction itself shows where the contour is wrong. Applied to seven pelvic organs on MR scans and to kidneys on CT scans, the method outperforms variational-autoencoder and statistical baselines on most organs, and it needs neither the segmentation model nor image intensities. The wider claim is that this makes the detector modality-independent and explainable enough for clinical quality assurance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the denoising autoencoder: a 3D U-Net with residual units trained channel-wise on stacked organ masks, one channel per organ. Training corrupts ground-truth masks by adding or removing random binary patches, with patch hyperparameters tuned per organ so that the signed Dice coefficients of the noisy inputs cover $[-1,1]$ roughly uniformly. At inference, the inaccuracy score is the Dice loss between the preprocessed auto-segmentation and the reconstruction. This carries the entire argument: the difference between what the network expects from correct masks and what it is given is the detection signal, and the reconstruction itself is the explanation.

What would settle it

Build a test set of auto-segmentations with deliberately systematic errors (uniform erosion or dilation, global translation, or one organ's label placed where another belongs) at Dice values near the existing thresholds, and check whether the inaccuracy score separates them from accurate masks; if the ranking is no better than random, the random-patch proxy is not faithful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a 3D denoising autoencoder, trained exclusively on ground-truth organ masks corrupted by adding or removing random binary patches, learns a prior over plausible organ geometry, and the Dice loss between an unseen auto-segmentation and its denoised reconstruction is a useful inaccuracy signal. The paper demonstrates this on the MR pelvis use case with seven organs and on the CT kidney use case, showing that the detector is independent of imaging modality and of the segmentation model that produced the masks. In the reported experiments it achieves the highest AUROC and AUPR among the four compared methods for all seven MR pelvis organs and for the left kidney, and ranks second for the right kidney behind a single-organ variational autoencoder. The reconstruction also gives a visual map of where the contour is suspected to be wrong, such as an under-segmented femoral head or a disconnected kidney.

Load-bearing premise

The training corruption, which adds or removes random binary patches from ground-truth masks, is assumed to resemble the errors real auto-segmentation systems make; if real errors are systematic boundary shifts or organ confusions rather than patch-like defects, the learned inaccuracy score may not rise for them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained detector can be applied post hoc to any segmentation method for the same organs, without retraining or access to the segmentation model's internal features.
  • Because only binary masks are used, the same detector transfers across imaging modalities, as demonstrated on MR and CT, and could be extended to other modality pairs.
  • The reconstruction image gives clinicians a direct view of suspicious regions, supporting explainable quality assurance in automated treatment planning workflows.
  • The method can be positioned as a post-processing step in radiation therapy planning to flag contours that need review, potentially counteracting automation bias.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the random-patch training noise is a poor proxy for systematic errors, such as uniform boundary shifts or organ confusion, the DAE may score those errors as plausible; a dedicated test on systematically corrupted segmentations would settle this.
  • The difference map between an input auto-segmentation and its reconstruction could be used not only to flag errors but to suggest where a clinician should edit the contour, although the paper does not test that editing workflow.
  • Manual per-organ tuning of the noise hyperparameters would become a bottleneck on extensive multi-organ deployments, so automating that calibration is a natural next step.
  • The same reconstruction-vs-input principle could transfer to other structured outputs with learnable shape priors, such as vessel trees or bone surfaces, beyond organ masks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an explainable, modality-independent method for detecting inaccurate organ segmentations in radiation therapy planning. A denoising autoencoder (DAE) is trained on ground-truth organ masks that are corrupted by adding or removing random binary patches; at inference, the inaccuracy score is the Dice loss between an auto-segmentation and the DAE's reconstruction. The method is evaluated on MR pelvis auto-segmentations (seven organs) and CT kidney auto-segmentations (two organs), and compared against a VAE-based approach following Sandfort et al. and a statistical Mahalanobis-distance baseline. The authors report superior performance of the DAE for all seven MR pelvis organs and comparable performance for the CT kidneys, and claim modality independence because only binary masks are used.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method is a practical post-hoc quality-assurance tool for organ-at-risk segmentation: it does not require access to the segmentation model, uses only binary masks, and provides visual explanations via reconstructions. The idea is simple, plausible, and could be useful in clinical workflows where automated segmentation is increasingly used. The authors are explicit about the training setup and evaluation metrics, and the inclusion of bootstrap confidence intervals is commendable. However, the evidence for the generality of the method is incomplete: the training noise model covers only a narrow class of segmentation errors, the statistical baseline is implemented with a reduced feature set, and the CT kidney results are only comparable rather than superior. These gaps do not invalidate the approach but do limit the strength of the claims one can currently make.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Figure 4] The training noise model injects or removes random binary patches from ground-truth masks, and the method is then claimed to detect inaccurate organ segmentations in general. However, the two validation examples in Figure 4 (insufficient scan coverage at the femoral head and a disconnected kidney due to erosion) are both patch-like failures. No evidence is provided that the inaccuracy score responds to systematic auto-segmentation errors such as global boundary contraction or expansion, smooth boundary shifts, or organ confusion. Because the DAE is trained only to undo patch noise, it may treat a smoothly deformed but still plausible mask as a clean shape and reconstruct it with low Dice loss, yielding a low inaccuracy score. This is a load-bearing gap between the training noise distribution and the scope of the central claim; the authors should either add experiments with systematic error types or temper the generality claim.
  2. [Section 2.5, Figure 3] The statistical baseline is implemented with only six features (volume, surface area, surface area to volume ratio, elongation, roundness, and centroid distance), whereas Hui et al. calculate 25 features and Altman et al. include intensity-based metrics. The paper's conclusion that the proposed method achieves 'superior performance compared to existing solutions in the literature' therefore rests on a comparison with a reduced and potentially weaker baseline. This is not evidence against the method itself, but it undermines the literal claim of superiority over prior work. The authors should either implement a fuller feature set or rephrase the comparison claim to state that the DAE outperforms their specific implementation.
  3. [Section 3.2, Abstract] The CT kidney results (Figure 3) show that the four methods are comparable, with the DAE ranked second for the right kidney behind VAE-Single. The abstract's 'superior performance for the majority of organs' and the conclusion's claim that the method is 'independent of the imaging modality' are therefore stronger than what the evidence supports. The CT kidney use case is the only evaluation beyond MR pelvis, and it uses different organs and segmentation models, so it does not isolate the imaging modality as the varying factor. The authors should either add a same-organ-across-modality experiment or explicitly acknowledge that the evidence for modality independence is indirect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'in dependent' should be 'independent'.
  2. [Section 2.3] The test set is augmented by rotating each scan by +/-10 degrees, creating multiple test samples from the same patient. This introduces correlation that may affect the bootstrap confidence intervals; the authors should clarify whether the bootstrap resampling accounts for patient identity.
  3. [Section 2.4] The noise-generation hyperparameters are 'optimized manually per organ', but the chosen values are not reported. For reproducibility, the authors should list the hyperparameters in a table or appendix.
  4. [Section 3.1] The organ-specific Dice thresholds are stated without justification or sensitivity analysis. A brief rationale or a reference supporting these thresholds would strengthen the evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DAE inaccuracy score is computed from a reconstruction and is not fitted to the evaluation labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The DAE is trained only on ground-truth organ masks corrupted by synthetic patch noise (Section 2.4), and the inaccuracy score is defined as the Dice loss between the auto-segmentation and the DAE reconstruction. The evaluation labels, in contrast, are defined by the Dice coefficient between the auto-segmentation and the ground-truth mask (Section 3). These are distinct quantities, connected only by the empirical hypothesis that masks far from the learned clean-mask manifold also tend to be far from ground truth. No parameter of the DAE is fitted to the Dice-vs-ground-truth labels, and no threshold or hyperparameter is selected using the test labels. The manual tuning of noise hyperparameters to make signed Dice coefficients cover [-1,1] uniformly does not encode the target outcome. The GE Auto Segmentation product and the MR segmentation models from prior work are used only to generate the test auto-segmentations; they are not part of the detection method's derivation, so the employer-related self-citations are not load-bearing. The weakest assumption—that random patch noise is a faithful proxy for real auto-segmentation errors—is a genuine generalization risk for clinical deployment, but it is not a circular reduction: the method could fail on systematic boundary errors without its definition being equivalent to its inputs. No equation is reused as both input and prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that synthetic patch noise mimics real segmentation errors, that ground-truth masks are correct, and that Dice-based thresholds define inaccuracy. The main hand-chosen parameters are noise-generation settings and evaluation thresholds; no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Noise generation hyperparameters per organ = not reported
    Maximum number of patches, minimum and maximum patch sizes, and patch center sampling method were manually optimized so that signed Dice coefficients of noisy inputs cover [-1,1] roughly uniformly. Values are not listed in the paper.
  • Organ-specific inaccuracy Dice thresholds = bladder 0.86, femoral heads 0.92, penile bulb 0.51, prostate 0.70, rectum 0.78, urethra 0.28, kidney 0.93
    These thresholds, established following Woodland et al., define the binary accurate/inaccurate labels used for AUROC and AUPR evaluation. They are hand-chosen and directly affect the reported performance curves.
  • Preprocessing spacing and spatial size = MR: (1.5,1.5,1.5) mm, (336,336,240); CT: (1.0,1.0,3.0) mm, (700,700,620), bounding box (272,160,80)
    Hand-chosen resampling and padding parameters. They determine the input tensor geometry and could affect reconstruction quality, though they are standard preprocessing choices.
  • Network architecture hyperparameters = DAE channels (8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048), strides (2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1), num_res_units 2; VAE latent sizes 10 and 100
    Standard architecture choices for the three networks. They are not fitted to the target outcome but contribute to performance and were selected by the authors.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Random binary patch noise is a good proxy for real auto-segmentation errors
    Section 2.4 describes noise as adding or removing random binary patches. The paper offers no analysis showing that clinical segmentation errors have this structure.
  • domain assumption Manual ground truth segmentations are correct
    Section 2.3 states ground truths were annotated by medical professionals. These annotations serve both as training targets and as the reference for labeling test errors.
  • domain assumption Organ-specific Dice thresholds from Woodland et al. validly separate accurate from inaccurate segmentations
    Section 3.1 sets thresholds based on the performance of the segmentation models. There is no independent clinical validation that these thresholds correspond to clinically meaningful errors.
  • domain assumption Two use cases, MR pelvis and CT kidney, are sufficient to establish modality independence
    The abstract and conclusion claim modality independence based on these two datasets. Both use segmentation models from the authors' organization, and no statistical test of generalizability is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modality-Independent Explainable Detection of Inaccurate Organ Segmentations Using Denoising Autoencoders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPGQKVUP

@misc{pith2026250412203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modality-Independent Explainable Detection of Inaccurate Organ Segmentations Using Denoising Autoencoders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPGQKVUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12203}
}
read the original abstract

In radiation therapy planning, inaccurate segmentations of organs at risk can result in suboptimal treatment delivery, if left undetected by the clinician. To address this challenge, we developed a denoising autoencoder-based method to detect inaccurate organ segmentations. We applied noise to ground truth organ segmentations, and the autoencoders were tasked to denoise them. Through the application of our method to organ segmentations generated on both MR and CT scans, we demonstrated that the method is independent of imaging modality. By providing reconstructions, our method offers visual information about inaccurate regions of the organ segmentations, leading to more explainable detection of suboptimal segmentations. We compared our method to existing approaches in the literature and demonstrated that it achieved superior performance for the majority of organs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12203 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of the four methods in detecting inaccurate organ segmentations, based on AUROC and AUPR. Error bars represent the 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. Percentage of inaccurate segmentations is displayed next to each organ label. 3. RESULTS 3.1. MR Pelvis We evaluated the four methods on the auto-segmentations in the test set. Following [4], auto-segmentations were categorized into accurate and inaccurate… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This challenge is further complicated by automation bias, where clinicians tend to overly rely on auto-segmentations [1]

    INTRODUCTION Inaccurate segmentation of organs at risk (OARs) can lead to errors in dose calculation during radiation therapy planning if left undetected by the clinical user. This challenge is further complicated by automation bias, where clinicians tend to overly rely on auto-segmentations [1]. Such inaccuracies can result in suboptimal treatment delive...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    MR Pelvis Segmentation Models To generate organ auto-segmentations for the MR pelvis use case, we utilized deep learning segmentation models described in Czipczer et al

    METHODS 2.1. MR Pelvis Segmentation Models To generate organ auto-segmentations for the MR pelvis use case, we utilized deep learning segmentation models described in Czipczer et al. [7]. Their method incorporated a localization module that employed 2D U -Net [8] segmentation models on axial, coronal and sagittal slices to find the center of the 3D boundi...

    work page

  3. [3]

    MR Pelvis We evaluated the four methods on the auto -segmentations in the test set

    RESULTS 3.1. MR Pelvis We evaluated the four methods on the auto -segmentations in the test set. Following [4], auto -segmentations were categorized into accurate and inaccurate classes based on the performance of the MR pelvis segmentation models. An organ auto-segmentation was labeled as inaccurate (label 1) if its Dice coefficient with the ground truth...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We demonstrated that our method provides superior performance compared to existing solutions in the literature

    CONCLUSION In this study, we developed an algorithm to detect inaccurate organ segmentations utilizing denoising autoencoders. We demonstrated that our method provides superior performance compared to existing solutions in the literature. Through the application of our method to the MR pelvis and CT kidney use cases, we showed that it is independent of th...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Ethical statements can be found in Section 2.8 in Czipczer et al

    COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS For the MR pelvis use case, all the scans were collected privately with the consent of the subjects. Ethical statements can be found in Section 2.8 in Czipczer et al. [7]. CT scans originated from two data sources . 20 cases in the test set were obtained from the publicly available CT -ORG dataset [11], for which ethical ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We thank the annotation team, including authors Zs.K., B.D

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (2023 -1.1.1- PIACI_FÓKUSZ-2024-00027) and GE HealthCare , where all authors are employed . We thank the annotation team, including authors Zs.K., B.D. -K.; and contributors Kata Bárány, Annamária Cseh, Alinka Csertő, Dóra Dani, Barbara Darázs, Kamilla Dávi...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators,

    K. Goddard, A. Roudsari, and J. Wyatt, “Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators,” J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA, vol. 19, pp. 121–7, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089

    doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089 2011

  8. [8]

    Quality assurance tool for organ at risk delineation in radiation therapy using a parametric statistical approach,

    C. B. Hui et al., “Quality assurance tool for organ at risk delineation in radiation therapy using a parametric statistical approach,” Med. Phys., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 2089–2096, May 2018, doi: 10.1002/mp.12835

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.12835 2018

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Detecting When Pre- trained nnU-Net Models Fail Silently for Covid-19 Lung Lesion Segmentation,

    C. Gonzalez, K. Gotkowski, A. Bucher, R. Fischbach, I. Kaltenborn, and A. Mukhopadhyay, “Detecting When Pre- trained nnU-Net Models Fail Silently for Covid-19 Lung Lesion Segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2021, vol. 12907, M....

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Dimensionality Reduction for Improving Out-of-Distribution Detection in Medical Image Segmentation,

    M. Woodland et al., “Dimensionality Reduction for Improving Out-of-Distribution Detection in Medical Image Segmentation,” in Uncertainty for Safe Utilization of Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, vol. 14291, C. H. Sudre, C. F. Baumgartner, A. Dalca, R. Mehta, C. Qin, and W. ...

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    A framework for automated contour quality assurance in radiation therapy including adaptive techniques,

    M. B. Altman et al., “A framework for automated contour quality assurance in radiation therapy including adaptive techniques,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 60, no. 13, pp. 5199–5209, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/13/5199

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Use of Variational Autoencoders with Unsupervised Learning to Detect Incorrect Organ Segmentations at CT,

    V. Sandfort, K. Yan, P. M. Graffy, P. J. Pickhardt, and R. M. Summers, “Use of Variational Autoencoders with Unsupervised Learning to Detect Incorrect Organ Segmentations at CT,” Radiol. Artif. Intell., vol. 3, no. 4, p. e200218, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1148/ryai.2021200218

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Comprehensive deep learning-based framework for automatic organs-at-risk segmentation in head- and-neck and pelvis for MR-guided radiation therapy planning,

    V. Czipczer et al., “Comprehensive deep learning-based framework for automatic organs-at-risk segmentation in head- and-neck and pelvis for MR-guided radiation therapy planning,” Front. Phys., vol. 11, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2023.1236792

    2023

  6. [14]

    U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, vol. 9351, N. Navab, J. Hornegger, W. M. Wells, and A. F. Frangi, Eds., in Lecture Notes in...

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Auto Segmentation

    “Auto Segmentation.” Accessed: May 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.gehealthcare.com/products/advanced- visualization/advanced-visualization/auto-segmentation

    2024

  8. [16]

    Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision,

    C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna, “Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2016, pp. 2818–2826. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.308

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    CT-ORG, a new dataset for multiple organ segmentation in computed tomography,

    B. Rister, D. Yi, K. Shivakumar, T. Nobashi, and D. L. Rubin, “CT-ORG, a new dataset for multiple organ segmentation in computed tomography,” Sci. Data, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 381, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-00715-8

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Left-Ventricle Quantification Using Residual U- Net,

    E. Kerfoot, J. Clough, I. Oksuz, J. Lee, A. P. King, and J. A. Schnabel, “Left-Ventricle Quantification Using Residual U- Net,” in Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart. Atrial Segmentation and LV Quantification Challenges, vol. 11395, M. Pop, M. Sermesant,...

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,” Jan. 29, 2017, arXiv: arXiv:1412.6980. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Very deep vaes generalize autoregressive models and can outperform them on images,

    R. Child, “Very deep vaes generalize autoregressive models and can outperform them on images,” ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv201110650, 2020, Accessed: Oct. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10650

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Re-parameterizing VAEs for stability,

    D. Dehaene and R. Brossard, “Re-parameterizing VAEs for stability,” ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv210613739, 2021, Accessed: Oct. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13739

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    On the Generalized Distance in Statistics,

    P. C. Mahalanobis, “On the Generalized Distance in Statistics,” Sankhyā Indian J. Stat. Ser. 2008-, vol. 80, pp. S1–S7, 2018

    2008

  15. [23]

    Optimization for medical image segmentation: theory and practice when evaluating with dice score or jaccard index,

    T. Eelbode et al., “Optimization for medical image segmentation: theory and practice when evaluating with dice score or jaccard index,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 3679–3690, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.