Cited by 1Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Learning to Abstain: Reliable Medical Image Segmentation With Rejection Option

Open access

Abstract

Uncertainty estimation is an important area of research in the deep learning field by offering numerous potential applications. Selective prediction is one of the possible applications that focuses on rejecting less confident samples to enhance the overall performance and reliability of accepted samples. In the context of segmentation, selective segmentation aims to allow the model to abstain from assigning labels to uncertain pixels. While selective classification has received considerable attention, only a few studies have explored selective segmentation. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach that addresses this gap by incorporating uncertainty learning during model training. Specifically, we propose a new training scheme that encourages the model to identify and alarm uncertain pixels in a real-time manner. Comparative experiments on three public medical segmentation datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Our approach achieves higher Dice scores across multiple coverage levels, surpassing the performance of existing approaches in the field.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2026.3669004

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Teye, Bayesian uncertainty estimation for batch normalized deep networks, 4907
  2. 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9196544 · DOI
  3. Gal, Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning, 1050
  4. Geifman, SelectiveNet: A deep neural network with an integrated reject option, 2151
  5. Ziyin, Deep gamblers: Learning to abstain with portfolio theory, 10623
  6. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.042 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1007/978-3-030-72084-1_11 · DOI
  8. 10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9433939 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/978-3-030-87234-2_26 · DOI
  10. 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3264582 · DOI
  11. Ding, Uncertainty-aware training of neural networks for selective medical image segmentation, 156
  12. 10.1007/s11548-022-02597-0 · DOI
  13. Neal, 2012, Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks
  14. Hendrycks, A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks
  15. Srivastava, 2014, Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15, 1929
  16. Lakshminarayanan, Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles, 6405
  17. 10.5555/3295222.3295309 · DOI
  18. Mandelbaum, 2017, Distance-based confidence score for neural network classifiers, arXiv:1709.09844 · arXiv
  19. 10.1007/s10462-023-10562-9 · DOI
  20. Hwang, Confidence-aware learning for deep neural networks, 7034
  21. Geifman, Bias-reduced uncertainty estimation for deep neural classifiers
  22. Toneva, An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning
  23. Corbière, Addressing failure prediction by learning model confidence, 2902
  24. 10.1109/3DV.2016.79 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1016/j.media.2016.02.006 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/mp.14676 · DOI
  27. 10.1109/IPTA50016.2020.9286453 · DOI
  28. 10.1260/2040-2295.4.3.371 · DOI
  29. 10.1118/1.4921366 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/TMI.2010.2047112 · DOI
  31. 10.59275/j.melba.2020-48g7 · DOI
  32. 10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_49 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/j.media.2020.101884 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sanisoglu, M. A., Navab, N., & Kim, S. T.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Kyung Hee University (KR)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2026
Volume
14
Pages
32655-32665
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7131855312
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by Korean Government (RS-2024-00334321, 2021R1G1A1094990)
  • Institute of Information and Communications Technology Planning and Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by Korean Government (MSIT) (RS-2024-00509257)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
uncertainty estimation, medical image segmentation, training program, coverage level, Dice score

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review