Improving Medical Images Classification With Label Noise Using Dual-Uncertainty Estimation
Abstract
Deep neural networks are known to be data-driven and label noise can have a marked impact on model performance. Recent studies have shown great robustness to classic image recognition even under a high noisy rate. In medical applications, learning from datasets with label noise is more challenging since medical imaging datasets tend to have instance-dependent noise (IDN) and suffer from high observer variability. In this paper, we systematically discuss the two common types of label noise in medical images - disagreement label noise from inconsistency expert opinions and single-target label noise from biased aggregation of individual annotations. We then propose an uncertainty estimation-based framework to handle these two label noise amid the medical image classification task. We design a dual-uncertainty estimation approach to measure the disagreement label noise and single-target label noise via improved Direct Uncertainty Prediction and Monte-Carlo-Dropout. A boosting-based curriculum training procedure is later introduced for robust learning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by conducting extensive experiments on three different diseases with synthesized and real-world label noise: skin lesions, prostate cancer, and retinal diseases. We also release a large re-engineered database that consists of annotations from more than ten ophthalmologists with an unbiased golden standard dataset for evaluation and benchmarking. The dataset is available at https://mmai.group/peoples/julie/.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Label noise can also derive from human uncertainty when using the consensus of multiple annotators, often needed due to the absence of a pathologically confirmed diagnosis label.
“Label noise can also derive from human uncertainty when using the consensus of multiple annotators, often needed due to the absence of a pathologically confirmed diagnosis label, thereby introducing inherent uncertainty35–37.”
From A scoping review of robustness concepts for machine learning in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474 · see citing works
Bengio, Y., Louradour, J., Collobert, R., & Weston, J. (2009) · Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.1145/1553374.1553380 · Cited by 5,366 · see citing works
Universal Adversarial Perturbations
Moosavi-Dezfooli, S.-M., Fawzi, A., Fawzi, O., & Frossard, P. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.17 · Cited by 2,680 · see citing works
Generalized Cross Entropy Loss for Training Deep Neural Networks with Noisy Labels
Zhang, Z., & Sabuncu, M. R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.07836 · Cited by 1,907 · see citing works
Regularizing Neural Networks by Penalizing Confident Output Distributions
Pereyra, G., Tucker, G., Chorowski, J., Kaiser, Ł., & Hinton, G. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.06548 · Cited by 655 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysis of the ISIC image datasets: Usage, benchmarks and recommendations
Cassidy, B., Kendrick, C., Brodzicki, A., Jaworek-Korjakowska, J., & Yap, M. H. (2022) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2021.102305 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
A scoping review of robustness concepts for machine learning in healthcare
Balendran, A., Beji, C., Bouvier, F., Khalifa, O., Evgeniou, T., Ravaud, P., & Porcher, R. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01420-1 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“Labelnoisecanalsoderive from human uncertainty when using the consensus of multiple anno-tators, often needed due to the absence of a pathologically con fi rmed diagnosis label, thereby introducing inherent uncertainty 35 – 37 .”
- Authors
- Ju, L., Wang, X., Wang, L., Mahapatra, D., Zhao, X., Zhou, Q., Liu, T., & Ge, Z.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Airdoc, Beijing, China
- Harbin Engineering University (CN)
- Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence (AE)
- Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1533-1546
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- OpenAlex
- W4206676556
- Cited by
- 128
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 7.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- label noise, medical image classification, uncertainty estimation, observer variability, Monte Carlo dropout, curriculum learning, boosting, skin lesion classification, prostate cancer, retinal disease, annotation bias
- MeSH terms
- Diagnostic Imaging, Noise, Radiography, 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