Cited by 428Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Confidence calibration and predictive uncertainty estimation for deep medical image segmentation

Open access
Mehrtash, Alireza, Wells, William M., Tempany, Clare M., Abolmaesumi, Purang, Kapur, Tina·2020·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Fully convolutional neural networks (FCNs), and in particular U-Nets, have achieved state-of-the-art results in semantic segmentation for numerous medical imaging applications. Moreover, batch normalization and Dice loss have been used successfully to stabilize and accelerate training. However, these networks are poorly calibrated i.e. they tend to produce overconfident predictions for both correct and erroneous classifications, making them unreliable and hard to interpret. In this paper, we study predictive uncertainty estimation in FCNs for medical image segmentation. We make the following contributions: 1) We systematically compare cross-entropy loss with Dice loss in terms of segmentation quality and uncertainty estimation of FCNs; 2) We propose model ensembling for confidence calibration of the FCNs trained with batch normalization and Dice loss; 3) We assess the ability of calibrated FCNs to predict segmentation quality of structures and detect out-of-distribution test examples. We conduct extensive experiments across three medical image segmentation applications of the brain, the heart, and the prostate to evaluate our contributions. The results of this study offer considerable insight into the predictive uncertainty estimation and out-of-distribution detection in medical image segmentation and provide practical recipes for confidence calibration. Moreover, we consistently demonstrate that model ensembling improves confidence calibration.

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.2020.3006437

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In 2020, Natekar et al. [694] used DenseUnet, ResUnet, SimUnet with TTD (test time dropout) for VI for segmentation of brain tumor on 1 dataset.

    “Natekar al. [694] | et | 2020 | DenseUnet, ResUnet, SimUnet | Segmentation | Brain tumor | 1 | TTD (test time dropout) for VI”

    From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [694]

    The Brain Tumor Segmentation Task section describes one BraTS dataset, and Experiments > MC dropout reports dropout sampling at inference time. However, Experiments > Training Baselines says the study used a U-Net-like FCN; our copy does not support the claim that it used DenseUnet, ResUnet, and SimUnet. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Disagreement among CV models is increasingly reused as a proxy for epistemic uncertainty in downstream applications such as quality control and human-in-the-loop review.

    “Increasingly, disagreement among these CV models is reused as a proxy for epistemic uncertainty in downstream applications such as quality control and human-in-the-loop review [11,18,15].”

    From Lost in the Folds: When Cross-Validation Is Not a Deep Ensemble for Uncertainty Estimation (2026) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Contributions, Results and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) describe model ensembles whose predictive uncertainty helps assess segmentation quality and detect failures; the Introduction also proposes seeking human intervention rather than allowing a silent failure. But the paper uses entropy of ensemble predictions, not disagreement among models specifically as a proxy for epistemic uncertainty. It does not establish that this practice is increasingly reused across CV applications or document human-in-the-loop review workflows. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [4]MRBrainS18. (2018) Grand challenge on MR brain segmentation at MICCAI 2018. [Online]. Available: https://mrbrains18.isi.uu.nl/
  2. [23]Liao Z, “ On modelling label quality assessment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00674, 2019. · arXiv
  3. [54]Berman M, Rannen Triki A, and Blaschko MB, “ The lovász-softmax loss: A tractable surrogate for the optimization of the intersection-over-union measure in neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 4413– 4421.
  4. [57]Sudre CH, Anson BG, Ingala S, Lane CD, Jimenez D, Haider L, Varsavsky T, Tanno R, Smith L, Ourselin S, “ Lets agree to disagree: Learning highly debatable multirater labelling,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention Springer, 2019, pp. 665– 673.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehrtash, A., Wells, W. M., Tempany, C. M., Abolmaesumi, P., & Kapur, T.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2020-12
Volume
39
Issue
12
Pages
3868-3878
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2991523350
Cited by
428
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 6
FWCI
16.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. National Institutes of Health (P41EB015898)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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
confidence calibration, predictive uncertainty estimation, medical image segmentation, fully convolutional network, U-Net, Dice loss, cross-entropy loss, model ensembling, out-of-distribution detection, batch normalization, brain segmentation, cardiac image segmentation, prostate segmentation
MeSH terms
Brain, Calibration, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Neural Networks, Computer, Uncertainty

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