Cited by 198Digital Holography and MicroscopyOptical measurement and interference techniquesRandom lasers and scattering media

Reliable deep-learning-based phase imaging with uncertainty quantification

Open access
Xue, Yujia, Cheng, Shiyi, Li, Yunzhe, Tian, Lei·2019·Optica

Abstract

Emerging deep-learning (DL)-based techniques have significant potential to revolutionize biomedical imaging. However, one outstanding challenge is the lack of reliability assessment in the DL predictions, whose errors are commonly revealed only in hindsight. Here, we propose a new Bayesian convolutional neural network (BNN)-based framework that overcomes this issue by quantifying the uncertainty of DL predictions. Foremost, we show that BNN-predicted uncertainty maps provide surrogate estimates of the true error from the network model and measurement itself. The uncertainty maps characterize imperfections often unknown in real-world applications, such as noise, model error, incomplete training data, and out-of-distribution testing data. Quantifying this uncertainty provides a per-pixel estimate of the confidence level of the DL prediction as well as the quality of the model and data set. We demonstrate this framework in the application of large space-bandwidth product phase imaging using a physics-guided coded illumination scheme. From only five multiplexed illumination measurements, our BNN predicts gigapixel phase images in both static and dynamic biological samples with quantitative credibility assessment. Furthermore, we show that low-certainty regions can identify spatially and temporally rare biological phenomena. We believe our uncertainty learning framework is widely applicable to many DL-based biomedical imaging techniques for assessing the reliability of DL predictions.

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 · 10.1364/optica.6.000618

Cites

49 of 49 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 2019, LaBonte et al. [686] used 3D Bayesian with VI for segmentation of material data (CT scans) on 2 datasets.

    “LaBonte al. [686] | et | 2019 | 3D Bayesian | Segmentation | Material data (CT scans) | 2 | VI”

    From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [686]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says this paper uses a Bayesian neural network for phase imaging and phase retrieval, not segmentation. The Introduction describes two computational microscopy platforms and biological samples, not two CT datasets of material data. The cited paper is by Xue et al.; the passages do not support the LaBonte attribution or the claimed 3D variational-inference method. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xue, Y., Cheng, S., Li, Y., & Tian, L.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Tian, Lei
Venue
Optica
Published
2019-05-07
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
618
ISSN
2334-2536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2909560691
Cited by
198
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 10
FWCI
12.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Optica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1813848)
  • National Institutes of Health (R21GM128020)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Digital Holography and Microscopy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Optical measurement and interference techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Acoustics and Ultrasonics › Random lasers and scattering media
Keywords
phase imaging, uncertainty quantification, Bayesian convolutional neural network, coded illumination, confidence map, out-of-distribution prediction

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