Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimization for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory and Practice When Evaluating With Dice Score or Jaccard Index

Open access
Eelbode, Tom, Bertels, Jeroen, Berman, Maxim, Vandermeulen, Dirk, Maes, Frederik, Bisschops, Raf, Blaschko, Matthew B.·2020·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

In many medical imaging and classical computer vision tasks, the Dice score and Jaccard index are used to evaluate the segmentation performance. Despite the existence and great empirical success of metric-sensitive losses, i.e. relaxations of these metrics such as soft Dice, soft Jaccard and Lovász-Softmax, many researchers still use per-pixel losses, such as (weighted) cross-entropy to train CNNs for segmentation. Therefore, the target metric is in many cases not directly optimized. We investigate from a theoretical perspective, the relation within the group of metric-sensitive loss functions and question the existence of an optimal weighting scheme for weighted cross-entropy to optimize the Dice score and Jaccard index at test time. We find that the Dice score and Jaccard index approximate each other relatively and absolutely, but we find no such approximation for a weighted Hamming similarity. For the Tversky loss, the approximation gets monotonically worse when deviating from the trivial weight setting where soft Tversky equals soft Dice. We verify these results empirically in an extensive validation on six medical segmentation tasks and can confirm that metric-sensitive losses are superior to cross-entropy based loss functions in case of evaluation with Dice Score or Jaccard Index. This further holds in a multi-class setting, and across different object sizes and foreground/background ratios. These results encourage a wider adoption of metric-sensitive loss functions for medical segmentation tasks where the performance measure of interest is the Dice score or Jaccard index.

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/tmi.2020.3002417

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 420

Metadata

Authors
Eelbode, T., Bertels, J., Berman, M., Vandermeulen, D., Maes, F., Bisschops, R., & Blaschko, M. B.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2020-11
Volume
39
Issue
11
Pages
3679-3690
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W3035546112
Cited by
420
References
34
FWCI
18.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimization for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory and Practice When Evaluating With Dice Score or Jaccard Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2020.3002417
The paper
Eelbode, T., Bertels, J., Berman, M., Vandermeulen, D., Maes, F., Bisschops, R., & Blaschko, M. B. (2020). Optimization for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory and Practice When Evaluating With Dice Score or Jaccard Index. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2020.3002417

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.