Conformal Lesion Segmentation for 3D Medical Images
Open accessAbstract
Medical image segmentation serves as a critical component of precision medicine, enabling accurate localization and delineation of pathological regions, such as lesions. However, existing models empirically apply fixed thresholds (e.g., 0.5) to differentiate lesions from the background, offering no statistical guarantees on key metrics such as the false negative rate (FNR). This lack of principled risk control undermines their reliable deployment in high-stakes clinical applications, especially in challenging scenarios like 3D lesion segmentation (3D-LS). To address this issue, we propose a risk-constrained framework, termed Conformal Lesion Segmentation (CLS), that calibrates data-driven thresholds via conformalization to ensure the test-time FNR remains below a target tolerance $\varepsilon$ under desired risk levels. CLS begins by holding out a calibration set to analyze the threshold setting for each sample under the FNR tolerance, drawing on the idea of conformal prediction. We define an FNR-specific loss function and identify the critical threshold at which each calibration data point just satisfies the target tolerance. Given a user-specified risk level $α$, we then determine the approximate $1-α$ quantile of all the critical thresholds in the calibration set as the test-time confidence threshold. By conformalizing such critical thresholds, CLS generalizes the statistical regularities observed in the calibration set to new test data, providing rigorous FNR constraint while yielding more precise and reliable segmentations. We validate the statistical soundness and predictive performance of CLS on six 3D-LS datasets across five backbone models, and conclude with actionable insights for deploying risk-aware segmentation in clinical practice.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes Conformal Lesion Segmentation (CLS), a split-conformal framework that calibrates a test-time decision threshold for 3D lesion segmentation so the false negative rate (FNR) remains below a user-specified tolerance ε with probability at least 1−α. Across six 3D-LS datasets and five backbones, CLS substantially reduces FNR compared with a fixed 0.5 threshold while introducing prediction compactness (PC) as a risk-aware benchmark.
Key findings
- On KiTS21, fixed threshold 0.5 yields high test-time FNRs across five models, ranging from 0.4935 (SAM-Med3D) to 0.5804 (UNETR); at ε=0.2, CLS reduces FNR to 0.1032 (Med3D), 0.0933 (nnUNet), 0.1145 (UNETR), 0.1070 (Swin-UNETR), and 0.0956 (SAM-Med3D).
- For Med3D on KiTS21, CLS reduces FNR from 0.5338 to 0.1032 at ε=0.2, an 80.7% relative reduction.
- Across six datasets at α=0.2, CLS improves empirical compliance rate (ECR) by over +0.45 absolute on average; examples include Med3D on LIDC-IDRI from 0.4783 to 0.8137 and Swin-UNETR on KiTS21 from 0.4081 to 0.8289.
- CLS maintains ECR control even when only 10% of data is reserved for calibration, and PC decreases monotonically with increasing α for most models, indicating more compact predictions under lower risk levels.
Methods
- Design: Split conformal prediction adapted to binary 3D lesion segmentation. For each calibration sample, CLS defines an FNR-specific loss and finds the critical threshold t_i at which the false negative proportion just satisfies tolerance ε, using binary search.
- Calibration: The sorted critical thresholds are used to compute the ⌈(1−α)(1+n)⌉/n quantile as the global test-time threshold, guaranteeing Pr(L_FNR_test(ˆt) ≤ ε) ≥ 1−α under exchangeability.
- Data and evaluation: Six fully annotated 3D medical segmentation datasets from the ULS23 challenge (KiTS21, LiTS, NIH-LN ABD, LIDC-IDRI, MDSC-Colon, MDSC-Pancreas) and five backbones (Med3D, nnUNet, UNETR, Swin-UNETR, SAM-Med3D). Default calibration/test split is 0.5, with each experimental group evaluated over 100 random splits; metrics are ECR and prediction compactness (PC).
Limitations
- The paper states that its guarantee relies on exchangeability between calibration and test data, and that this assumption does not hold in the presence of distribution shifts between calibration and testing phases.
- The paper notes that in 100 test runs, ECR occasionally falls below the theoretical 1−α lower bound due to finite-sample variability, despite the statistical guarantee.
- Evident from the text: experiments are limited to six 3D medical segmentation datasets and five pretrained backbones, with no evaluation of distribution-shift scenarios beyond the stated assumption.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
5 of 19 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ Introduction · p. 1
Under-segmentation, failing to fully capture lesion boundaries, can result in pathological regions being missed and thus left untreated.
“under-segmentation-failing to fully capture lesion boundaries-can result in pathological regions being missed and thus left untreated (Jalalifar et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2025).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites Jalalifar et al. 2022 source
The Introduction (page unavailable) says the entire tumour volume should be segmented and accurate delineation is fundamental to radiomic analysis. It does not say that an incompletely segmented region would be left untreated; the study examines segmentation for imaging biomarkers and radiotherapy outcome prediction, not whether segmentation errors cause treatment omissions. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Zhao et al. 2025 source
The Experimental results section reports under-segmented lesion pixels and partial missed detections, supporting the claim that segmentation can fail to capture pathological regions. It does not say that missed regions are left untreated or report treatment outcomes. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ Introduction · p. 1
Split conformal prediction (SCP) offers distribution-free, model-agnostic guarantees on ground-truth coverage, assuming data exchangeability.
“SCP offers distribution-free, model-agnostic guarantees on groundtruth coverage, assuming data exchangeability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked - Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1
CLS's statistical soundness and predictive performance were validated on six 3D-LS datasets across five backbone models.
“We validate the statistical soundness and predictive performance of CLS on six 3D-LS datasets across five backbone models”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
Under a fixed threshold, the FNR-specific loss distribution is skewed rightward with a mean of 0.5338.
“the loss distribution under a fixed threshold (red) is skewed rightward with a high mean of 0.5338”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
In 100 test runs, the ECR occasionally falls below the theoretical lower bound of 1-α.
“In 100 test runs, we occasionally observe that the ECR falls below the theoretical lower bound of 1 -α .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
Med3D on MDSC-Colon has an ECR of 0.3029 under a fixed threshold.
“0.3029 for Med3D on MDSCColon”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
CLS effectively constrains the test-time ECR metric under various user-specified risk levels on all six 3D-LS datasets across five pretrained segmentation models.
“As illustrated in Figure 4, utilizing each decision threshold calibrated by Eq. (5) effectively constrains the test-time ECR metric under various user-specified risk levels on all six 3D-LS datasets across five pretrained segmentation models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
After CLS calibration with ε=0.4 and α=0.2, the FNR-specific loss distribution shifts leftward with a mean of 0.2253.
“After CLS calibration with ε = 0 . 4 and α = 0 . 2 (blue), the distribution shifts sharply leftward, with the mean reduced to 0.2253.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
CLS calibration leads to substantial and consistent FNR reductions across all models and tolerance levels (ε).
“This calibration leads to substantial and consistent FNR reductions across all models and tolerance levels ( ε ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
CLS consistently satisfies the specified FNR tolerance across a wide range of risk levels (ε ∈ {0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5}).
“Furthermore, CLS consistently satisfies the specified FNR tolerance across a wide range of risk levels ( ε ∈ { 0 . 1 , 0 . 2 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 5 } ), demonstrating both statistical rigor and adaptability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
Med3D on LIDC-IDRI ECR increases from 0.4783 to 0.8137 after CLS calibration at α=0.2.
“the ECR of Med3D on LIDC-IDRI increases from 0.4783 to 0.8137”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
With a fixed threshold, ECR values remain low across six 3D-LS datasets, with several models performing below 0.40.
“when using a fixed threshold, ECR values remain low across six 3D lesion segmentation (3D-LS) datasets, with several models performing below 0.40”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
CLS calibration reduces the average loss and variance of the FNR-specific loss compared to a fixed threshold.
“Distribution of FNR-specific loss before (fixed threshold at 0 . 5 ) and after CLS calibration ( ε = 0 . 4 , α = 0 . 2 ), illustrating the reduction in average loss and variance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
Under a fixed threshold of 0.5, all five pretrained segmentation models exhibit substantially high test-time FNRs on the KiTS21 dataset, ranging from 0.4935 (SAM-Med3D) to 0.5804 (UNETR).
“under a fixed threshold of 0.5, all five pretrained segmentation models exhibit substantially high test-time FNRs on the KiTS21 dataset, ranging from 0.4935 (SAM-Med3D) to 0.5804 (UNETR).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Conclusion · p. 7
CLS remains robust and effective even with limited calibration samples.
“CLS remains robust and effective even with limited calibration samples”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
- Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
Swin-UNETR on LiTS has an ECR of 0.3134 under a fixed threshold.
“0.3134 for Swin-UNETR on LiTS”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 7
CLS maintains strict control of test-time ECR across all calibration-test split configurations, even with only 10% of data reserved for calibration.
“CLS maintains strict control of the test-time ECR across all configurations, even when only 10% of the data is reserved for calibration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
For most models, PC decreases monotonically with increasing α.
“For most models, PC decreases monotonically with increasing α”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
On KiTS21 at ε=0.2, CLS reduces FNR to between 0.0933 and 0.1145 across the five models, compared to 0.4935-0.5804 under fixed threshold 0.5.
“at a moderate tolerance of ε = 0 . 2 , CLS reduces the FNR of Med3D from 0.5338 to 0.1032, achieving an 80 . 7% relative reduction. Similarly, significant improvements are observed for nnUNet (from 0.5122 to 0.0933), UNETR (from 0.5804 to 0.1145), Swin-UNETR (from 0.5642 to 0.1070), and SAM-Med3D (from 0.4935 to 0.0956).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
Even under the strictest constraint (ε=0.1), FNRs remain below target across all models (e.g., 0.0466 for Swin-UNETR).
“even under the strictest constraint ( ε = 0 . 1 ), FNRs remain below target across all models (e.g., 0.0466 for Swin-UNETR)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ Abstract · p. 1
Existing medical image segmentation models typically depend on a fixed, heuristic threshold (e.g., 0.5) to delineate target structures from background, lacking statistically valid guarantees for critical safety metrics such as the false negative rate (FNR).
“existing models empirically apply fixed thresholds (e.g., 0.5) to differentiate lesions from the background, offering no statistical guarantees on key metrics such as the false negative rate (FNR).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites He et al. 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 3
The FNR-specific loss is monotonically non-increasing with respect to t.
“The monotonicity of the FNR-specific loss (i.e., the false negative proportion of each sample under a given decision threshold 1 -t ) with respect to t is immediate from its definition”
- Also stated in: § Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 4 · plain
“The FNR-specific loss is monotonically non-increasing with respect to t .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 4 · plain
- Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 7
Statistical guarantees remain valid even in highly imbalanced calibration settings.
“statistical guarantees remain valid even in highly imbalanced calibration settings”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ Conclusion · p. 7
The prediction compactness metric serves as a novel, interpretable benchmark to quantify spatial precision and model uncertainty under formal risk constraints.
“we introduce the prediction compactness metric, serving as a novel, interpretable benchmark to quantify spatial precision and model uncertainty under formal risk constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
Models exhibiting a flatter PC curve tend to allocate predictions more conservatively, indicating higher confidence concentration.
“Models exhibiting a flatter PC curve (i.e., less sensitive to increases in α ) tend to allocate predictions more conservatively, indicating higher confidence concentration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 3
The critical point t_i minimizes the predicted lesion area Mask_i(t_i) to enhance precision subject to the risk constraint.
“This critical point t i minimizes the predicted lesion area Mask i ( t i ) to enhance precision subject to the risk constraint.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Conclusion · p. 7
CLS offers a principled, flexible, and practical foundation for deploying uncertainty-aware segmentation models with statistical guarantees.
“CLS offers a principled, flexible, and practical foundation for deploying uncertainty-aware segmentation models with statistical guarantees”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
- Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
CLS offers a principled and practically effective framework for deploying segmentation models under clinically meaningful risk constraints.
“CLS offers a principled and practically effective framework for deploying segmentation models under clinically meaningful risk constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ Introduction · p. 2
For each calibration sample, CLS identifies the maximum decision threshold such that the proportion of false negatives remains below the target tolerance ε.
“Concretely, for each calibration sample, CLS identifies the maximum decision threshold such that the proportion of false negatives remains below the target tolerance ε .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Notations and Problem Formulation · p. 3
The behavior of predicted probabilities falling below 0.5 underscores the inadequacy of using a fixed threshold across samples.
“Such behavior underscores the inadequacy of using a fixed threshold across samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Experimental Settings · p. 5
Prediction compactness (PC) provides a robust and interpretable measure for comparing the spatial efficiency of lesion predictions under risk constraints.
“Thus, PC provides a robust and interpretable measure for comparing the spatial efficiency of lesion predictions under risk constraints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductnone given§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
All results satisfy the predefined FNR tolerance ε by construction.
“by construction, all results satisfy the predefined FNRtolerance ε”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
PC curves provide a model-agnostic benchmark for assessing the uncertainty structure and calibration efficiency.
“PC curves provide a model-agnostic benchmark for assessing the uncertainty structure and calibration efficiency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
Minor violations of the ECR lower bound can occur in practice due to finite-sample variability.
“minor violations can occur in practice due to finite-sample variability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6
The reduction in PC reflects improved spatial precision under reliable conditions.
“confirming that the reduction in PC reflects improved spatial precision under reliable conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 3
Given exchangeability, the calibration set can be leveraged as a collection of observed data to calibrate the segmentation threshold and transfer statistical guarantees to fresh, unseen data points.
“Given the exchangeability between the given test instance and the calibration data points, the calibration set D cal can be leveraged as a collection of observed data. This enables us to calibrate the segmentation threshold by enforcing an FNR constraint on the calibration set, and to transfer the established statistical guarantees to fresh, unseen data points.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The n calibration samples and each test point are exchangeable.
- Premisecitation§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5
The guarantee provided by the SCP framework is statistically rigorous.
“While the guarantee provided by the SCP framework is statistically rigorous (Ye et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2024a)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Ye et al. 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Wang et al. 2024a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Study design and conductreasoning§ Appendix C: CLS Algorithm Description · p. 10
The CLS algorithm guarantees that the resulting segmentation satisfies the false negative risk constraint Pr(L_FNR^test(t) ≤ ε) ≥ 1-α.
“This guarantees, under the conformal prediction framework, that the resulting segmentation satisfies the false negative risk constraint Pr(L FNR test ( ˆ t ) ≤ ε ) ≥ 1 -α .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
- Premisereasoning§ Appendix A: Additional Related Work · p. 10
SCP guarantees a marginal coverage level of at least 1-α on the test distribution.
“This guarantees a marginal coverage level of at least 1 -α on the test distribution.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
- May combine two claims. 15
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ Introduction · p. 1SCP has demonstrated strong performance in classification settings.
“While SCP has demonstrated strong performance in classification settings (Angelopoulos et al. 2020)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Angelopoulos et al. 2020 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ Related Work · p. 3Recent work views segmentation models as a grid of pixel-level classifiers and constructs prediction sets using a pixel-wise SCP approach.
“Under semantic segmentation settings, recent work views segmentation models as a grid of pixel-level classifiers and constructs prediction sets using a pixel-wise SCP approach (Zhi et al. 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Zhi et al. 2025 source
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6After CLS calibration at α=0.2, ECR improves substantially and consistently, with average gains of over +0.45 absolute improvement.
“After applying CLS calibration at a risk level of α = 0 . 2 , ECR improves substantially and consistently, achieving gains of over +0.45 absolute improvement on average.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Notations and Problem Formulation · p. 3A substantial portion of predicted probabilities corresponding to ground-truth lesion voxels fall below 0.5, and these probabilities are distributed relatively uniformly within the lesion regions.
“Notably, a substantial portion of predicted probabilities corresponding to groundtruth lesion voxels (i.e., label = 1) fall below 0.5, and these probabilities are distributed relatively uniformly within the lesion regions.”
- Also stated in: § Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 4 · plain
“The output probability matrices contain a substantial number of voxels with predicted probabilities below 0.5. Lesion-region probabilities are relatively uniformly distributed, causing nearly half of ground-truth lesion voxels to be missed under a fixed threshold of 0.5.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 4 · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Conclusion · p. 7CLS consistently enforces test-time FNR control across diverse 3D-LS benchmarks, substantially reducing undersegmentation risk.
“CLS consistently enforces test-time FNR control across diverse 3DLS benchmarks, thereby substantially reducing the undersegmentation risk”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6Swin-UNETR on KiTS21 ECR jumps from 0.4081 to 0.8289 after CLS calibration at α=0.2.
“Swin-UNETR on KiTS21 jumps from 0.4081 to 0.8289”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ Introduction · p. 1Missing lesions smaller than 5 mm in early-stage tumor screening can have serious consequences for patient outcomes, as false negatives directly compromise diagnostic and therapeutic decisions.
“in early-stage tumor screening, missing lesions smaller than 5 mmcan have serious consequences for patient outcomes, as false negatives directly compromise diagnostic and therapeutic decisions (Korhonen et al. 2021; Luo et al. 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Korhonen et al. 2021 source
- cites Luo et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6Lower risk levels allow for more aggressive (spatially expansive) lesion delineation.
“consistent with the intuition that lower risk levels allow for more aggressive (i.e., spatially expansive) lesion delineation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ Related Work · p. 3SCP is applicable to any pretrained model to construct sets guaranteed to contain the ground truth with a user-specified probability, under the exchangeability condition.
“SCP is applicable to any pretrained model to construct sets that are guaranteed to contain the ground truth with a user-specified probability (Angelopoulos and Bates 2021; Wang et al. 2024b, 2025a), under the exchangeability condition (Wang et al. 2025b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Angelopoulos and Bates 2021 source
- cites Wang et al. 2024b, 2025a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Wang et al. 2025b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6CLS not only enforces failure rate constraints but also enhances practical segmentation quality.
“These results confirm that CLS not only enforces failure rate constraints but also enhances practical segmentation quality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 7Models with steep PC growth may reflect less calibrated uncertainty handling.
“models with steep PC growth may reflect less calibrated uncertainty handling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ Experimental Settings · p. 5The denominator in PC can alternatively be formulated using the ground-truth lesion volume, and such a choice only introduces a constant scaling factor per sample and does not affect the relative ranking of models.
“While the denominator in PC can alternatively be formulated using the ground-truth lesion volume, such a choice only introduces a constant scaling factor per sample and does not affect the relative ranking of models.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 7CLS enables not only statistically guaranteed FNR control, but also introduces a robust, interpretable spatial metric-prediction compactness-under risk-aware evaluation.
“These findings collectively demonstrate that CLS enables not only statistically guaranteed FNR control, but also introduces a robust, interpretable spatial metric-prediction compactness-under risk-aware evaluation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 7CLS is useful in benchmarking and improving model uncertainty behavior in medical segmentation.
“This highlights the utility of CLS in benchmarking and improving model uncertainty behavior in medical segmentation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ Related Work · p. 3Prior studies have effectively applied SCP to image classification scenarios.
“Prior studies have effectively applied SCP to image classification scenarios (Liu et al. 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Liu et al. 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5Relaxed tolerances are met with less conservative thresholds, offering a flexible tradeoff between coverage and safety.
“while relaxed tolerances are met with less conservative thresholds, offering a flexible tradeoff between coverage and safety.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Abstract · p. 1CLS generalizes the statistical regularities observed in the calibration set to new test data, providing rigorous FNR constraint while yielding more precise and reliable segmentations.
“CLS generalizes the statistical regularities observed in the calibration set to new test data, providing rigorous FNR constraint while yielding more precise and reliable segmentations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 4Under exchangeability, using the calibrated threshold ˆt, the test-time false negative proportion satisfies P(L_FNR_test(ˆt) ≤ ε) ≥ 1-α.
“Suppose the given test instance ( x test , y ∗ test ) and ( x i , y ∗ i ) i =1 , ··· ,n are exchangeable, we employ ˆ t as the test-time decision threshold and the resulting predicted lesion region is Mask test ( ˆ t ) . Then the false negative proportion L FNR test ( ˆ t ) satisfies”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“which constrains the test-time false negative rate (FNR) to lie below a user-specified tolerance ε , with high probability 1 -α .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The n calibration samples and each test point are exchangeable.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · p. 2 · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ Conformal Lesion Segmentation · p. 3The nonconformity score t_i represents the lowest feasible decision threshold for each calibration sample under which the false negative proportion remains within the specified tolerance ε.
“which represents the lowest feasible decision threshold for each calibration sample under which the false negative proportion remains within the specified tolerance ε .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6Gains are model-agnostic and task-invariant, demonstrating robustness of CLS across CNN and Transformer backbones and diverse organ and modality domains.
“Importantly, gains are model-agnostic and task-invariant, demonstrating the robustness of CLS across both CNNbased and Transformer-based backbones, as well as across diverse organ and modality domains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 6CLS tightly controls false negatives by adjusting thresholds based on sample-specific risk, resulting in globally improved test-time performance.
“This reflects CLS's ability to tightly control false negatives by adjusting thresholds based on sample-specific risk, resulting in globally improved test-time performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ Empirical Evaluations · p. 5Heuristic decision thresholds fail to adapt to distributional uncertainty and lead to frequent false negatives, an issue particularly critical in clinical settings.
“These results underscore the limitations of heuristic decision thresholds, which fail to adapt to distributional uncertainty and lead to frequent false negatives-an issue particularly critical in clinical settings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ Conclusion · p. 7CLS constructs a novel nonconformity score based on a tailored FNR-specific loss and establishes statistically rigorous decision thresholds via conformal calibration.
“which constructs a novel nonconformity score based on a tailored FNR-specific loss and establishes statistically rigorous decision thresholds via conformal calibration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisereasoning§ Appendix B: Assumptions · p. 10Every i.i.d. sequence is also exchangeable.
“every i.i.d. (independent and identically distributed) sequence is also exchangeable”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ Appendix C: CLS Algorithm Description · p. 10The calibration set is obtained as one realization from 100 random data splits to enhance robustness and reliability of evaluation.
“This calibration set is obtained as one realization from 100 random data splits to enhance the robustness and reliability of the evaluation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ Appendix A: Additional Related Work · p. 10SCP provides a principled framework for transforming any heuristic or model-dependent notion of uncertainty into a statistically rigorous one.
“SCP provides a principled framework for transforming any heuristic or modeldependent notion of uncertainty into a statistically rigorous one.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Angelopoulos and Bates 2021 source
- cites Wang et al. 2025b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ Appendix A: Additional Related Work · p. 10Under the assumption of exchangeability, SCP construction guarantees that the true label will be included in the prediction set with approximate probability 1-α.
“Under the assumption of exchangeability, this construction guarantees that the true label will be included in the prediction set with approximate probability 1 -α .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Angelopoulos and Bates 2021 source
- cites Wang et al. 2025b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisereasoning§ Appendix A: Additional Related Work · p. 10SCP procedure yields valid marginal coverage on finite-sample test data.
“This procedure yields valid marginal coverage on finite-sample test data, offering statistically meaningful uncertainty estimates.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductreasoning§ D.2 Details of Models and Fine-tuning Strategies · p. 12The adaptations ensure a fair comparison in downstream segmentation performance.
“These adaptations ensure a fair comparison in downstream segmentation performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone given§ Appendix B: Assumptions · p. 10The i.i.d. assumption does not hold in the presence of distribution shifts between calibration and testing phases.
“this assumption does not hold in the presence of distribution shifts between the calibration and testing phases.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ D.2 Details of Models and Fine-tuning Strategies · p. 12Five 3D medical image segmentation models were selected and fine-tuned to align their parameter counts for a fair and consistent comparison.
“We selected five 3D medical image segmentation models, each characterized by a distinct architectural design, and applied customized fine-tuning strategies to align their parameter counts for a fair and consistent comparison.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The n calibration samples and each test point are exchangeable.
“we posit that the n calibration samples { ( x i , y ∗ i ) } n i =1 and each test point ( x test , y ∗ test ) in D test are exchangeable”
The paper relies on this without support.
The adaptation of SCP to binary image segmentation for FNR control remains previously under-explored.
“its adaptation to binary image segmentation for FNR control remains a previously under-explored topic.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Calibrating statistically rigorous prediction sets that validly distinguish foreground lesion regions from background in binary segmentation tasks like 3D-LS remains challenging.
“Yet, in binary segmentation tasks like 3D-LS (binary classification), calibrating statistically rigorous prediction sets that validly distinguish foreground lesion regions (class 1) from background (class 0) remains challenging.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The calibration and test data are exchangeable (i.i.d. is a special case).
“We assume that the inputs to the segmentation model are independently and identically drawn from a fixed underlying distribution.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Appendix applies a nonconformity-score threshold to probabilities
MinorThe appendix defines the nonconformity score as one minus the true-class probability and later specifies a prediction set using scores at or below the calibrated threshold. That rule includes classes with probability at least one minus the threshold, not classes whose probability exceeds the threshold itself.
“Any class whose softmax probability exceeds the derived threshold is included in the prediction set.”
“Construct the prediction set for X test : C ( X test ) = { y ∈ [ K ] : s ( X test , y ) ≤ ˆ q } .”
Cites
nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation
Isensee, F., Jaeger, P. F., Kohl, S. A. A., Petersen, J., & Maier-Hein, K. H. (2021) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z · Cited by 10,477 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…3D medical image segmentation models with diverse architectural designs, each fine-tuned to achieve a comparable number of parameters: Med3D(Chen, Ma, and Zheng 2019), nnUNet(Isensee et al. 2021), UNETR(Hatamizadeh et al. 2022), Swin-UNETR(Hatamizadeh et al. 2021), and SAM-Med3D(Wang et al. 2023).”
UNETR: Transformers for 3D Medical Image Segmentation
Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., Yang, D., Myronenko, A., Landman, B., Roth, H. R., & Xu, D. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) · doi:10.1109/wacv51458.2022.00181 · Cited by 3,586 · see citing works
Swin UNETR: Swin Transformers for Semantic Segmentation of Brain Tumors in MRI Images
Hatamizadeh, A., Nath, V., Tang, Y., Yang, D., Roth, H. R., & Xu, D. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08999-2_22 · Cited by 2,273 · cited 7× · see citing works
“Swin-UNETR (Hatamizadeh et al. 2021) integrates a Swin Transformer-based encoder with a fully convolutional de-coder for 3D medical image segmentation.”
InfluentialThe Liver Tumor Segmentation Benchmark (LiTS)
Bilic, P., Christ, P., Li, H. B., Vorontsov, E., Ben-Cohen, A., Kaissis, G., Szeskin, A., Jacobs, C., Mamani, G. E. H., Chartrand, G., et al. (2023) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102680 · Cited by 1,412 · cited 3× · see citing works
“We consider six fully annotated 3D medical segmentation datasets from the ULS23 Segmentation Challenge (de Grauw et al. 2025), each covering a different anatomical region or organ system: KiTS21 (Heller et al. 2023), LiTS (Bilic et al. 2023), NIH-LN ABD (Roth et al. 2014), LIDC-IDRI (Armato III et al. 2011), MDSC-Colo…”
InfluentialThe Medical Segmentation Decathlon
Antonelli, M., Reinke, A., Bakas, S., Farahani, K., Kopp-Schneider, A., Landman, B. A., Litjens, G., Menze, B., Ronneberger, O., Summers, R. M., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30695-9 · Cited by 1,384 · see citing works
Medical SAM adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation
Wu, J., Wang, Z., Hong, M., Ji, W., Fu, H., Xu, Y., Xu, M., & Jin, Y. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103547 · Cited by 909 · see citing works
Self-citationRoth, H. R., Lu, L., Seff, A., Cherry, K. M., Hoffman, J., Wang, S.-J., Liu, J., Turkbey, E., & Summers, R. (2014) · International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10404-1_65 · Cited by 593 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…Challenge (de Grauw et al. 2025), each covering a different anatomical region or organ system: KiTS21 (Heller et al. 2023), LiTS (Bilic et al. 2023), NIH-LN ABD (Roth et al. 2014), LIDC-IDRI (Armato III et al. 2011), MDSC-Colon (Antonelli et al. 2022), and MDSC-Pancreas (Antonelli et al. 2022).”
Transformers in medical image segmentation: A review
Xiao, H., Li, L., Liu, Q., Zhu, X., & Zhang, Q. (2023) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2023.104791 · Cited by 398 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Although convolutional layers excel at capturing local features, they often struggle with global semantic understanding (Xiao et al. 2023).”
Inductive Confidence Machines for Regression
Papadopoulos, H., Proedrou, K., Vovk, V., & Gammerman, A. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36755-1_29 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Med3D: Transfer Learning for 3D Medical Image AnalysisPreprint
Chen, S., Ma, K., & Zheng, Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.00625 · Cited by 318 · cited 14× · see citing works
“For most mod-Med3D els, PC decreases monotonically with increasing α , consistent with the intuition that lower risk levels allow for more aggressive (i.e., spatially expansive) lesion delineation.”
InfluentialA gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification
Angelopoulos, A. N., & Bates, S. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.07511 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Chen, J., Liu, Y.-H., Wei, S.-W., Bian, Z., Subramanian, S., Carass, A., Prince, J. L., & Du, Y. (2023) · Medical Image Anal. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15615 · Cited by 205 · cited 2×
“Prior studies have effectively applied SCP to image classification scenarios (Liu et al. 2025).”
Chen, J., Liu, Y., Wei, S., Bian, Z., Subramanian, S., Carass, A., Prince, J. L., & Du, Y. (2024) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103385 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
SAM-Med3D: Towards General-Purpose Segmentation Models for Volumetric Medical Images
Wang, H., Guo, S., Jin, Y., Deng, Z., Cheng, J., Li, T., Chen, J., Su, Y., Huang, Z., Shen, Y., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91721-9_4 · Cited by 173 · cited 5× · see citing works
“SAM-Med3D (Wang et al. 2023) extends the Segment Any-thing Model (SAM) framework to 3D medical image segmentation by adapting its core components, including the image encoder, prompt encoder, and mask decoder, to volumetric data.”
InfluentialDistribution-free, Risk-controlling Prediction Sets
Bates, S., Angelopoulos, A., Lei, L., Malik, J., & Jordan, M. (2021) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3478535 · Cited by 144 · cited 9× · see citing works
“Notably, we expect the ECR results on the test set to approach but remain above the contrast, CLS develops nonconformity scores based on a tailored FNR-specific loss, enabling the derivation of statistically rigorous thresholds under a user-specified risk level (e.g., α = 0 .”
InfluentialSAM-Med3D: Towards General-purpose Segmentation Models for Volumetric Medical Images
Wang, H., Guo, S., Ye, J., Deng, Z., Cheng, J., Li, T., Chen, J., Su, Y., Huang, Z., Shen, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.15161 · Cited by 115
ConU: Conformal Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Correctness Coverage Guarantees
Wang, Z., Duan, J., Cheng, L., et al. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.00499 · Cited by 86
Self-citationVISTA3D: A Unified Segmentation Foundation Model For 3D Medical Imaging
He, Y., Guo, P., Tang, Y., Myronenko, A., Nath, V., Xu, Z., Yang, D. F., Zhao, C., Simon, B., Belue, M. J., et al. (2025) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.01943 · Cited by 85 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…these gains, current models typically depend on a fixed, heuristic threshold (i.e., 0.5) Figure 1: Illustration of 3D-LS tasks. to delineate target structures from background, lacking statistically valid guarantees for critical safety metrics such as the false negative rate (FNR) (He et al. 2025).”
InfluentialUncertainty Sets for Image Classifiers using Conformal Prediction
Angelopoulos, A., Bates, S., Malik, J., & Jordan, M. I. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.14193 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
LW-CTrans: A lightweight hybrid network of CNN and Transformer for 3D medical image segmentation
Kuang, H., Wang, Y., Tan, X., Yang, J., Sun, J., Liu, J., Qiu, W., Zhang, J., Wang, J., Yang, C., et al. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103545 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Sun, Y., Wang, L., Li, G., Lin, W., & Wang, L. (2024) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-024-01283-7 · Cited by 58 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…facilitated the development of numerous automated segmentation models for medical imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Moglia et al. 2025; Sun et al. 2025), achieving expert-level performance across various clinical scenarios (Wu et al. 2025).”
BrainSegFounder: Towards 3D foundation models for neuroimage segmentation
Cox, J., Liu, P., Stolte, S. E., Yang, Y., Liu, K., See, K. B., Ju, H., & Fang, R. (2024) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103301 · Cited by 56 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Transformer-based 3D architectures, such as BrainSegFounder (Cox et al. 2024) and MedSAM2 (Ma et al. 2025), integrate multi-modal inputs and large-scale pretraining to enhance anatomical representation, while ProLesA-Net (Zaridis et al. 2024) enhances prostate lesion segmentation via multi-channel…”
Grauw, M. D., Scholten, E., Smit, E. J., et al. (2024) · Medical Image Anal. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.05231 · Cited by 37 · cited 3×
“We consider six fully annotated 3D medical segmentation datasets from the ULS23 Segmentation Challenge (de Grauw et al. 2025), each covering a different anatomical region or organ system: KiTS21 (Heller et al. 2023), LiTS (Bilic et al. 2023), NIH-LN ABD (Roth et al. 2014), LIDC-IDRI (Armato III et al. 2011), MDSC-Colo…”
Heller, N., Isensee, F., Trofimova, D., Tejpaul, R., Zhao, Z., Chen, H., Wang, L., Golts, A., Khapun, D., Shats, D., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.01984 · Cited by 35 · cited 5× · see citing works
“We consider six fully annotated 3D medical segmentation datasets from the ULS23 Segmentation Challenge (de Grauw et al. 2025), each covering a different anatomical region or organ system: KiTS21 (Heller et al. 2023), LiTS (Bilic et al. 2023), NIH-LN ABD (Roth et al. 2014), LIDC-IDRI (Armato III et al. 2011), MDSC-Colo…”
InfluentialBreast MRI: False-Negative Results and Missed Opportunities.
Korhonen, K. E., Zuckerman, S. P., Weinstein, S. P., Tobey, J., Birnbaum, J. A., McDonald, E. S., & Conant, E. F. (2021) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.2021200145 · Cited by 34
de Grauw, M., Scholten, E. T., Smit, E. J., Rutten, M. J. C. M., Prokop, M., van Ginneken, B., & Hering, A. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103525 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Wang, Z., Duan, J., Wang, Q.-N., et al. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20178 · Cited by 26
Self-citationDeep learning for pancreas segmentation on computed tomography: a systematic review
Moglia, A., Cavicchioli, M., Mainardi, L. T., & Cerveri, P. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-11050-4 · Cited by 26 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Notable examples include multi-pathway CNNs with CRFs for multiple sclerosis (Saeed et al. 2025), two-pathway 3D CNNs that incorporate contextual MRI information for stroke lesions (Bal et al. 2024), and lightweight CNN–Transformer hybrids like LW-CTrans for small lesion segmentation (Kuang et al. 2025).”
InfluentialA novel framework for segmentation of small targets in medical images
Zhao, L., Wang, T., Chen, Y., Zhang, X., Tang, H., Lin, F., Li, C., Li, Q., Tan, T., Kang, D., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-94437-9 · Cited by 24 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In particular, under-segmentation—failing to fully capture lesion boundaries—can result in pathological regions being missed and thus left untreated (Jalalifar et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2025).”
Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification
Ye, F., Yang, M., Pang, J., Wang, L., Wong, D. F., Yılmaz, E., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2024) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/079017-0491 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Jalalifar, S. A., Soliman, H., Sahgal, A., & Sadeghi-Naini, A. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14205133 · Cited by 15 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In particular, under-segmentation—failing to fully capture lesion boundaries—can result in pathological regions being missed and thus left untreated (Jalalifar et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2025).”
Bal, A., Banerjee, M., Chaki, R., et al. (2023) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-023-16689-9 · Cited by 14 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…examples include multi-pathway CNNs with CRFs for multiple sclerosis (Saeed et al. 2025), two-pathway 3D CNNs that incorporate contextual MRI information for stroke lesions (Bal et al. 2024), and lightweight CNN–Transformer hybrids like LW-CTrans for small lesion segmentation (Kuang et al. 2025).”
MedSAM2: Segment Anything in 3D Medical Images and VideosPreprint
Ma, J., Yang, Z., Kim, S., Chen, B., Baharoon, M., Fallahpour, A., Asakereh, R., Lyu, H., & Wang, B. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03600 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Luo, X., Yang, Y., Yin, S., Li, H., Zhang, W., Xu, G., Fan, W., Zheng, D., Li, J., Shen, D. G., et al. (2022) · Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac192 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Non-Exchangeable Conformal Risk ControlPreprint
Farinhas, A., Zerva, C., Ulmer, D., & Martins, A. F. T. (2023) · IT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01262 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Zaridis, D. I., Mylona, E., Tsiknakis, N., Tachos, N. S., Matsopoulos, G. K., Kostas Marias, A., Tsiknakis, M., & Fotiadis, D. I. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100992 · Cited by 6 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…3D architectures, such as BrainSegFounder (Cox et al. 2024) and MedSAM2 (Ma et al. 2025), integrate multi-modal inputs and large-scale pretraining to enhance anatomical representation, while ProLesA-Net (Zaridis et al. 2024) enhances prostate lesion segmentation via multi-channel 3D convolutions.”
Ni, G., Cao, K., Qin, X., et al. (2025) · Biomedical Optics Express · doi:10.1364/boe.558532 · Cited by 6 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…high-light the need for statistically grounded segmentation frameworks, especially in challenging scenarios such as 3D lesion segmentation (3D-LS) (Ni et al. 2025; de Grauw et al. 2025), as illustrated in Figure 1, where even small variations in the decision threshold can lead to substantial…”
Saeed, R., Ansari, S. U., Hanif, M. I., Javed, K., Haider, U., Maab, I., Qaisar, S. M., & Pławiak, P. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3556885 · Cited by 3 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Notable examples include multi-pathway CNNs with CRFs for multiple sclerosis (Saeed et al. 2025), two-pathway 3D CNNs that incorporate contextual MRI information for stroke lesions (Bal et al. 2024), and lightweight CNN–Transformer hybrids like LW-CTrans for small lesion segmentation (Kuang et al.…”
Wang, Q., Geng, T., Wang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.08174 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationZhi, Z., Feng, C., Daneshmend, A., Orlu, M., Demosthenous, A., Yin, L., Li, D., Liu, Z., & Rodrigues, M. R. D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.08308 · cited 1×
“Under semantic segmentation settings, recent work views segmentation models as a grid of pixel-level classifiers and constructs prediction sets using a pixel-wise SCP approach (Zhi et al. 2025).”
SConU: Selective Conformal Uncertainty in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, Z., Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.14154
Self-citationSpatial-Aware Conformal Prediction for Trustworthy Hyperspectral Image Classification
Liu, K., Sun, T., Zeng, H., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.01236
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Armato III, S. G.; McLennan, G.; Bidaut, L.; et al. 2011. The lung image database consortium (LIDC) and image database resource initiative (IDRI): a completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans. Medical Physics , 38(2): 915-931.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, Z., Aniri, Chen, T.-L., et al. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01556 · Cited by 5
“Split conformal prediction (SCP) can transform heuristic uncertainty notions to statistically calibrated decision rules (An-gelopoulos & Bates, 2021; Campos et al., 2024a; Tan et al., 2025).”
Self-citationSet-Valued Prediction for Large Language Models with Feasibility-Aware Coverage Guarantees
Li, Y., Hu, A., Ye, Y.-C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22966 · Cited by 4
“SCP is a distribution-free and model-agnostic framework that provides user-specified coverage guarantees for ground-truth labels in closed-ended tasks [2], like classification [5] and image segmentation [44].”
Self-citationAsymptotic Risk Calibration for Selective Question Answering
Lin, S., & Dong, S.-J. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12008
AI-Enhanced Sanctions Screening A risk-controlled predictive compliance Framework
Chawande, P. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Multidisciplinary Physical Sciences · doi:10.37082/ijirmps.v14.i1.232939
Hu, H., Shi, J.-R., Jiang, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19952
“Con-formal prediction is an established framework that converts heuristic uncertainty scores from an agnostic model into statistically rigorous ones [38, 32].”
- Authors
- Tan, B., Wang, Z., Duan, J., Xu, K., Shen, H. T., Shi, X., & Shen, F.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2510.17897
- OpenAlex
- W4416054720
- Semantic Scholar
- 6401049d4532b976d65dd747c766885486023941
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 38
- Type
- posted content
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- conformal prediction, threshold calibration, calibration set, medical image segmentation
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-22.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-22.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
