Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty-Guided Interactive Segmentation paradigm for Ultrasound Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A single point prompt, placed at the highest-uncertainty pixel, outperforms existing interactive and non-interactive segmentation methods across three ultrasound datasets.

desk verdict Plausible ultrasound interactive segmentation system with a useful calibration idea, but the paper's headline single-prompt superiority claim is not actually demonstrated because the core prompt-sampling mechanism is never ablated and the baselines were trained from scratch. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01072 v1 pith:QQKK3WEN submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CV

Jiang Shang , Yuanmeng Wu , Xiaoxiang Han , Xi Chen , Qi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords UltrasoundimagesegmentationInteractiveEvidentialuncertaintyDempster-ShafertheorySubjectiveLogiccalibrationPointpromptingMedical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that interactive ultrasound segmentation can be made dramatically more efficient by letting the model decide where the user should click. Its proposed EUGIS paradigm first trains an evidential model, based on Dempster-Shafer theory and Subjective Logic, to produce a per-pixel uncertainty map, then places point prompts at the most uncertain locations instead of at random or hand-chosen error regions. A trainable calibration loss sharpens the boundary between confident and uncertain predictions, and multiple segmentation heads pick the most confident mask. Across breast, thyroid, and left-ventricle ultrasound datasets, EUGIS with a single point prompt is reported to beat state-of-the-art interactive baselines that receive five clicks, and also beat non-interactive methods. The practical stake is a reduction in clinician effort and iteration count if the interaction can be guided reliably by uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the evidential uncertainty map built from Dempster-Shafer theory and Subjective Logic. Each pixel's network output is treated as non-negative evidence $e^n_{j,k}$ that defines a Dirichlet concentration $\alpha^n_{j,k}=e^n_{j,k}+1$, from which the belief mass $b^n_{j,k}=e^n_{j,k}/S$ and uncertainty $u_{j,k}=N/S$ follow, where $S=\sum_n(e^n_{j,k}+1)$. This uncertainty map drives prompt simulation: at each iteration the model picks the $k$ pixels with the highest uncertainty as point prompts. The calibration loss $L_{\text{CEU}}$ uses an annealing factor $\alpha_t$ to enforce that accurate predictions are confident and inaccurate ones are uncertain. Stage II initializes the interactive model from Stage I, re-generates the uncertainty map each epoch, and selects among $K$ segmentation masks the one with the highest confidence score, making the prompt guidance and the final mask selection work from the same evidential signal.

What would settle it

Retrain SAM-Med2D, Medical SAM Adapter, and SAMed with their released pre-trained weights and run the same 1-, 3-, and 5-click protocol on BUSI, DDTI, and EchoNet; if any baseline matches or beats EUGIS at equal or fewer clicks, the single-prompt superiority claim fails. As a second check, replace EUGIS's uncertainty-based prompt selection with random point sampling inside the same architecture; if the Dice gap disappears, then uncertainty guidance, not the architecture or training, is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that evidential uncertainty is a better prompt generator for interactive segmentation than the random or error-region sampling used by prior end-to-end methods. EUGIS parameterizes the model's output as a Dirichlet distribution via Dempster-Shafer theory and Subjective Logic, so each pixel carries a belief mass and an uncertainty mass, and the highest-uncertainty pixels become the next point prompts. The authors introduce a calibrated evidential uncertainty loss (CEU) that penalizes confident wrong predictions early and uncertain right predictions later, producing cleaner uncertainty maps. With this guidance, EUGIS reaches 88.95% Dice on BUSI, 91.63% on DDTI, and 94.85% on EchoNet with one click, exceeding the best interactive baseline at five clicks on each dataset (e.g., 83.73% Dice for SAM-Med2D on BUSI). The paper also reports that removing CEU lowers Dice by 1.46% on DDTI, and that a hybrid CNN-ViT encoder contributes more than the multiple segmentation heads.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that EUGIS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines with a single prompt rests on the assumption that training the SAM-based baselines from scratch, without their pre-trained weights, is a fair comparison, since the reported gaps might be much smaller if those baselines were used as intended.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A clinician could plausibly segment an ultrasound lesion with a single click, because one well-placed prompt already outperforms five prompts in the reported comparisons.
  • The uncertainty map doubles as a quality indicator: regions where segmentation fails are the regions the model flags as uncertain, which could support automated flagging of unreliable boundaries.
  • Because the same paradigm works on breast, thyroid, and cardiac ultrasound, the method is not tied to one anatomy or one imaging setup.
  • The ablation results imply that calibration of uncertainty, not just the uncertainty estimate itself, is a major source of the gain; future interactive systems should treat uncertainty calibration as a first-class component.
  • On larger datasets, non-interactive methods close much of the gap, but EUGIS still leads with one click, suggesting the interaction benefit persists as data scale grows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the single-click result transfers to a real radiology workflow, the practical bottleneck shifts from placing prompts to deciding when the model's uncertainty is low enough to stop iterating; an automatic stopping rule based on the uncertainty map would be a natural extension.
  • The same uncertainty-guided sampling could be applied to other interactive modalities such as CT or MRI, but the paper does not test that, and boundary ambiguity there differs from ultrasound speckle.
  • A direct test of whether EUGIS truly emulates radiologists would be to compare its chosen click locations with clicks from expert sonographers on the same images; the paper only simulates prompts from uncertainty maps.
  • Because the reported gains depend on training SAM-based baselines from scratch, the headline margin over those baselines may shrink under standard transfer-learning practice, even though the uncertainty-guided mechanism itself could still stand.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EUGIS, a two-stage interactive segmentation framework for ultrasound images. In stage I, a hybrid encoder-decoder is trained with evidential deep learning based on Dempster-Shafer theory and Subjective Logic, together with a new calibration loss (CEU), to produce per-pixel uncertainty maps. In stage II, the model is extended with a prompt encoder; point prompts are simulated by selecting the highest-uncertainty pixels from the (initially stage-I, later updated) uncertainty map, and the model refines the segmentation over multiple iterations while selecting among K output masks. The method is evaluated on BUSI, DDTI, and EchoNet with five-fold cross-validation, comparing with U-Net, U-Net++, SegNet, TransUNet, H2Former, SAM, SAMed, MedSAM, SAM-Med2D, and Medical SAM Adapter, and reporting Dice, Jaccard, and 95HD. The central claim is that EUGIS reaches state-of-the-art performance with a single point prompt, for example 88.95% Dice on BUSI.

Significance. If the empirical claims were properly supported, EUGIS would be a useful contribution to interactive ultrasound segmentation: the idea of replacing random or error-region prompt simulation with evidence-based uncertainty-guided sampling is natural and could reduce the number of clicks needed. The paper also contains a standard derivation of Dirichlet-based evidential losses, an explicit calibration loss, and evaluations on three public datasets. However, the key mechanism is not isolated by an ablation, the comparison with SAM-family baselines appears to handicap those baselines, and at least one central number is reported inconsistently. These issues must be resolved before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-C.2, §V-C, Tables IV and V] The paper's principal stated contribution is the use of evidential uncertainty maps to generate point prompts that simulate expert radiologist behavior. Yet the ablation study never replaces uncertainty-guided prompt sampling with random sampling or with the error-region sampling used by existing end-to-end methods. The reported ablations vary the encoder (Table IV), CEU, and multi-head selection (Table V), but the prompt-sampling mechanism is held constant throughout. Consequently, the single-prompt improvements in Tables I–III cannot be attributed to uncertainty-guided sampling; they could come from the hybrid encoder, the two-stage training schedule, CEU, or the multi-head selection. A controlled experiment that keeps all other components fixed and swaps only the prompt-sampling strategy—uncertainty-guided versus random versus error-region—is necessary to validate the core claim.
  2. [§V-A, Tables I–III] The text states that the interactive SAM-family baselines (SAMed, SAM-Med2D, and Medical SAM Adapter) are all trained from scratch rather than using the pre-trained weights provided. These methods are explicitly designed to leverage pre-trained SAM weights, so training them from scratch on relatively small ultrasound datasets removes their main advantage and is likely to understate their performance. The headline result that EUGIS with one click beats SAM-Med2D with five clicks is therefore not a fair comparison against these baselines as they are intended to be used. The authors should either use the official pre-trained weights and standard fine-tuning protocols, or provide a clear justification for the from-scratch training and show that the conclusions are unchanged when pre-trained initialization is used.
  3. [§V-A.1 versus Table I] The BUSI single-prompt result is reported inconsistently: the text states that EUGIS with a single point prompt attains Dice and Jaccard scores of 87.69% and 79.31%, while Table I lists 88.95% and 81.08% for the same configuration. This is a direct numerical inconsistency in the central experimental result and must be corrected. The authors should also verify that all other numbers quoted in the text match the corresponding tables.
  4. [§III-C, Eqs. (14)–(16)] The prompt-simulation and iterative-training protocol is not specified precisely enough to reproduce or to interpret. Eq. (14) defines Lcon as a mean-square error but calls its minimum a 'highest confidence score', and Eq. (15) is hard to parse. In addition, it is unclear how the 'k pixels exhibiting the greatest uncertainty' are converted into point clicks—for example, whether a clustering or connected-component step is used to avoid selecting adjacent pixels—how the M iterations relate to the 1/3/5 click counts in the tables, and whether prompts are re-sampled at every iteration. Please provide an algorithmic description of the interaction schedule.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-B.1] The notation X ∈ R^{N×H×W×C} is unusual; if N denotes the batch size it should be stated explicitly, and otherwise the input shape should be corrected to a standard image tensor shape.
  2. [§III-B.1, Eq. (4)] The text says 'pj,k is a probability vector of length k'; from the context it should be a vector of length N (the number of classes), and the simplex SN is also defined with N classes.
  3. [§III-B.2, §IV-B] The annealing coefficient α_t = α0 e^{-t/T} in Eq. (5) contains an unspecified hyperparameter α0; its value should be reported in the implementation details.
  4. [§IV-A] For BUSI, please clarify how the 780 images are used, since the normal class has no segmentation mask; in particular, specify whether normal images are discarded or included and how the five-fold cross-validation splits are formed.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption of Figure 2 is grammatically incomplete ('it retains uncertainty map from the first-stage model are used as the point prompt generator') and should be rewritten for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the uncertainty-guided prompt loop is self-referential by design, but all quantitative claims are measured against held-out ground truth and no prediction reduces to a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline is self-referential in the sense that the uncertainty map used for prompt simulation is produced by the model itself (Sec. III-C.2 and III-C.3-c), but this is not a circular derivation: the reported Dice, Jaccard, and 95HD values (Tables I-III) are computed against held-out ground-truth masks, not against the model's own uncertainty map. The CEU loss (Eq. 5) is a supervised calibration objective that uses ground-truth labels during training to penalize confident-yet-wrong and uncertain-yet-correct pixels; it does not reuse test labels. The evidential framework is derived from Dempster-Shafer theory and Subjective Logic (Eqs. 1-4) with external citations [22,23], and no load-bearing self-citation is present. The absence of an ablation that replaces uncertainty-guided prompt sampling with random or error-region sampling, and the training of SAM-family baselines from scratch, are experimental-support and fairness concerns rather than circular reductions, because the central claim is still evaluated against independent ground truth. No equation in the paper equates a claimed prediction with a fitted parameter or with the model's own output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is built on standard evidential deep learning and does not introduce new physical or architectural entities. The main assumptions are about the usefulness of uncertainty-guided prompting and the fairness of the baselines, both of which are untested or questionable.

free parameters (4)
  • λ1 = 0.2
    Balance factor for KL divergence in the evidential calibrated model loss (Eq. 13). Chosen by hand, not derived.
  • λ2 = 1
    Balance factor for soft dice loss (Eq. 13). Chosen by hand, not derived.
  • β1, β2 = not specified
    Constants in the soft dice loss (Eq. 11). Values are not given in the paper.
  • α0 = not specified
    Initial annealing factor in the CEU loss (Eq. 5). The definition α_t = α0 e^{-t/T} is given without a value.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Dirichlet distribution and associated properties (Beta function, digamma function, KL divergence) are valid for modeling categorical uncertainty.
    Used in Section III-B to derive expected cross-entropy and dice losses.
  • domain assumption High-uncertainty regions in the Stage I uncertainty map correspond to regions where the segmentation model is likely to err, so sampling there improves interactive segmentation.
    Invoked in Section III-C.2 as the basis for prompt simulation; not empirically validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Training the interactive segmentation model on prompts generated from its own uncertainty map converges to a well-calibrated and accurate model.
    Assumed in the iterative training procedure described in Section III-C.3 without convergence or stability analysis.
  • domain assumption Training SAM-based baselines from scratch on these datasets is a fair and representative comparison.
    Assumed in Section V-A where the authors state all interactive baselines were trained from scratch.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty-Guided Interactive Segmentation paradigm for Ultrasound Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQKK3WEN

@misc{pith2026250101072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty-Guided Interactive Segmentation paradigm for Ultrasound Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQKK3WEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01072}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate and robust ultrasound image segmentation is critical for computer-aided diagnostic systems. Nevertheless, the inherent challenges of ultrasound imaging, such as blurry boundaries and speckle noise, often cause traditional segmentation methods to struggle with performance. Despite recent advancements in universal image segmentation, such as the Segment Anything Model, existing interactive segmentation methods still suffer from inefficiency and lack of specialization. These methods rely heavily on extensive accurate manual or random sampling prompts for interaction, necessitating numerous prompts and iterations to reach satisfactory performance. In response to this challenge, we propose the Evidential Uncertainty-Guided Interactive Segmentation (EUGIS), an end-to-end, efficient tiered interactive segmentation paradigm based on evidential uncertainty estimation for ultrasound image segmentation. Specifically, EUGIS harnesses evidence-based uncertainty estimation, grounded in Dempster-Shafer theory and Subjective Logic, to gauge the level of uncertainty in the predictions of model for different regions. By prioritizing sampling the high-uncertainty region, our method can effectively simulate the interactive behavior of well-trained radiologists, enhancing the targeted of sampling while reducing the number of prompts and iterations required.Additionally, we propose a trainable calibration mechanism for uncertainty estimation, which can further optimize the boundary between certainty and uncertainty, thereby enhancing the confidence of uncertainty estimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Different interactive segmentation paradigms, x t and p t refer to the input image and prompt in the iteration t, respectively. (a) Semi￾automatic paradigm with the human-in-loop interaction process; (b) End￾to-End paradigm with human-simulated prompt information; (c) Our proposed method with prompts generated by uncertainty map. [12]–[14]; (2) End-to-end interactive segmentation with auto￾mated simulation of human … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our two-stage interactive segmentation paradigm through evidence-based uncertainty estimation. In the first stage, an evidential calibrated model is trained to generate the uncertainty map, and it retains uncertainty map from the first-stage model are used as the point prompt generator, retain the interactive segmentation model in the second stage, which can be repeated for M − 1 iterations in the proces… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of comparison experimental results on the BUSI dataset. The two columns on the far right represent our proposed method EUGIS and the corresponding uncertainty map. Label, MSA and Med2D refer to the Ground Truth, Medical SAM Adapter and SAM-Med2D, respectively. datasets. These methods incorporate U-Net [1], U-Net++ [2], SegNet [52], TransUNet [53], H2Former [6], SAMed [21], SAM [54], SAM-Med2D [16], Med… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effect of the number of point prompts and iterations on performance in EUGIS. In contrast, interactive segmentation methods trained from scratch exhibited robustness with low standard deviations and performance that significantly surpassed that of non-interactive s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmenta- tion,

    Z. Zhou, M. M. Rahman Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmenta- tion,” in Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8th International Workshop, ML-CDS 2018, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Gra...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Small sample image segmen- tation by coupling convolutions and transformers,

    H. Qi, H. Zhou, J. Dong, and X. Dong, “Small sample image segmen- tation by coupling convolutions and transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Erdunet: An efficient residual double- coding unet for medical image segmentation,

    H. Li, D.-H. Zhai, and Y . Xia, “Erdunet: An efficient residual double- coding unet for medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Aau-net: an adaptive attention u-net for breast lesions segmentation in ultrasound images,

    G. Chen, L. Li, Y . Dai, J. Zhang, and M. H. Yap, “Aau-net: an adaptive attention u-net for breast lesions segmentation in ultrasound images,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1289–1300, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    H2former: An efficient hierarchical hybrid transformer for medical image segmentation,

    A. He, K. Wang, T. Li, C. Du, S. Xia, and H. Fu, “H2former: An efficient hierarchical hybrid transformer for medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2763–2775, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cmu-net: a strong convmixer-based medical ultrasound image segmentation network,

    F. Tang, L. Wang, C. Ning, M. Xian, and J. Ding, “Cmu-net: a strong convmixer-based medical ultrasound image segmentation network,” in 2023 IEEE 20th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A novel deep learning framework for automatic recognition of thyroid gland and tissues of neck in ultrasound image,

    L. Ma, G. Tan, H. Luo, Q. Liao, S. Li, and K. Li, “A novel deep learning framework for automatic recognition of thyroid gland and tissues of neck in ultrasound image,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 6113–6124, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Ultrasound nodule segmentation using asymmetric learning with simple clinical annotation,

    X. Zhao, Z. Li, X. Luo, P. Li, P. Huang, J. Zhu, Y . Liu, J. Zhu, M. Yang, S. Chang et al. , “Ultrasound nodule segmentation using asymmetric learning with simple clinical annotation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Detection of lines and boundaries in speckle images-application to medical ultrasound,

    R. N. Czerwinski, D. L. Jones, and W. D. O’Brien, “Detection of lines and boundaries in speckle images-application to medical ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 126–136, 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    Performance analysis of speckle ultrasound image filtering,

    R. Rosa and F. C. Monteiro, “Performance analysis of speckle ultrasound image filtering,” Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization , vol. 4, no. 3-4, pp. 193–201, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Interactive segmentation of medical images through fully convolutional neural networks,

    T. Sakinis, F. Milletari, H. Roth, P. Korfiatis, P. Kostandy, K. Philbrick, Z. Akkus, Z. Xu, D. Xu, and B. J. Erickson, “Interactive segmentation of medical images through fully convolutional neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08205, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Interactive medical image segmentation via point-based interaction and sequential patch learning,

    J. Sun, Y . Shi, Y . Gao, L. Wang, L. Zhou, W. Yang, and D. Shen, “Interactive medical image segmentation via point-based interaction and sequential patch learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10481 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Deepigeos: a deep interactive geodesic framework for medical image segmentation,

    G. Wang, M. A. Zuluaga, W. Li, R. Pratt, P. A. Patel, M. Aertsen, T. Doel, A. L. David, J. Deprest, S. Ourselin et al., “Deepigeos: a deep interactive geodesic framework for medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 41, ...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Ma-sam: Modality-agnostic sam adaptation for 3d medical image segmentation,

    C. Chen, J. Miao, D. Wu, Z. Yan, S. Kim, J. Hu, A. Zhong, Z. Liu, L. Sun, X. Li et al., “Ma-sam: Modality-agnostic sam adaptation for 3d medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08842 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sam-med2d,

    J. Cheng, J. Ye, Z. Deng, J. Chen, T. Li, H. Wang, Y . Su, Z. Huang, J. Chen, L. Jiang et al., “Sam-med2d,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16184, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sam-u: Multi-box prompts triggered uncertainty estimation for reliable sam in medical image,

    G. Deng, K. Zou, K. Ren, M. Wang, X. Yuan, S. Ying, and H. Fu, “Sam-u: Multi-box prompts triggered uncertainty estimation for reliable sam in medical image,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention . Springer, 2023, pp. 368–377

    2023

  10. [18]

    Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  11. [19]

    Desam: Decoupling segment anything model for generalizable medical image segmentation,

    Y . Gao, W. Xia, D. Hu, and X. Gao, “Desam: Decoupling segment anything model for generalizable medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00499, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Segment anything in medical images,

    J. Ma, Y . He, F. Li, L. Han, C. You, and B. Wang, “Segment anything in medical images,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 654, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,

    J. Wu, W. Ji, Y . Liu, H. Fu, M. Xu, Y . Xu, and Y . Jin, “Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12620 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation,

    K. Zhang and D. Liu, “Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13785 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty,

    M. Sensoy, L. Kaplan, and M. Kandemir, “Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Dirichlet-based uncertainty cal- ibration for active domain adaptation,

    M. Xie, S. Li, R. Zhang, and C. H. Liu, “Dirichlet-based uncertainty cal- ibration for active domain adaptation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13824, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Interactive graph cuts for optimal bound- ary & region segmentation of objects in nd images,

    Y . Y . Boykov and M.-P. Jolly, “Interactive graph cuts for optimal bound- ary & region segmentation of objects in nd images,” in Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. ICCV 2001 , vol. 1. IEEE, 2001, pp. 105–112

    2001

  18. [26]

    Random walks for image segmentation,

    L. Grady, “Random walks for image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1768– 1783, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Geodesic star convexity for interactive image segmentation,

    V . Gulshan, C. Rother, A. Criminisi, A. Blake, and A. Zisserman, “Geodesic star convexity for interactive image segmentation,” in 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 2010, pp. 3129–3136

    2010

  20. [28]

    ” grabcut

    C. Rother, V . Kolmogorov, and A. Blake, “” grabcut” interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 309–314, 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Phiseg: Capturing uncertainty in medical image segmentation,

    C. F. Baumgartner, K. C. Tezcan, K. Chaitanya, A. M. H ¨otker, U. J. Muehlematter, K. Schawkat, A. S. Becker, O. Donati, and E. Konukoglu, “Phiseg: Capturing uncertainty in medical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: ...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Semi-supervised npc segmentation with uncertainty and attention guided consistency,

    L. Hu, J. Li, X. Peng, J. Xiao, B. Zhan, C. Zu, X. Wu, J. Zhou, and Y . Wang, “Semi-supervised npc segmentation with uncertainty and attention guided consistency,” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 239, p. 108021, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    A probabilistic u-net for segmentation of ambiguous images,

    S. Kohl, B. Romera-Paredes, C. Meyer, J. De Fauw, J. R. Ledsam, K. Maier-Hein, S. Eslami, D. Jimenez Rezende, and O. Ronneberger, “A probabilistic u-net for segmentation of ambiguous images,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Exploring uncertainty measures in deep networks for multiple sclerosis lesion detection and segmentation,

    T. Nair, D. Precup, D. L. Arnold, and T. Arbel, “Exploring uncertainty measures in deep networks for multiple sclerosis lesion detection and segmentation,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 59, p. 101557, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Unified medical image segmentation by learning from uncertainty in an end- to-end manner,

    P. Tang, P. Yang, D. Nie, X. Wu, J. Zhou, and Y . Wang, “Unified medical image segmentation by learning from uncertainty in an end- to-end manner,” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 241, p. 108215, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networks,

    G. Wang, W. Li, M. Aertsen, J. Deprest, S. Ourselin, and T. Ver- cauteren, “Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networks,” Neurocomputing, vol. 338, pp. 34–45, 2019. AUTHOR et al.: PREPARATION OF...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Uncertainty-aware hierarchical aggregation network for medical image segmentation,

    T. Zhou, Y . Zhou, G. Li, G. Chen, and J. Shen, “Uncertainty-aware hierarchical aggregation network for medical image segmentation,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Towards fewer annotations: Active learning via region impurity and prediction uncer- tainty for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,

    B. Xie, L. Yuan, S. Li, C. H. Liu, and X. Cheng, “Towards fewer annotations: Active learning via region impurity and prediction uncer- tainty for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022...

    2022

  29. [37]

    An uncertainty-guided tiered self-training framework for active source-free domain adaptation in prostate segmentation,

    Z. Luo, X. Luo, Z. Gao, and G. Wang, “An uncertainty-guided tiered self-training framework for active source-free domain adaptation in prostate segmentation,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention . Springer, 2024, pp. 107–117

    2024

  30. [38]

    Calibrating ensembles for scalable uncertainty quantification in deep learning-based medical image segmentation,

    T. Buddenkotte, L. E. Sanchez, M. Crispin-Ortuzar, R. Woitek, C. McCague, J. D. Brenton, O. ¨Oktem, E. Sala, and L. Rundo, “Calibrating ensembles for scalable uncertainty quantification in deep learning-based medical image segmentation,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol....

    2023

  31. [39]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,

    B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell, “Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Confidence calibration and predictive uncertainty estimation for deep medical image segmentation,

    A. Mehrtash, W. M. Wells, C. M. Tempany, P. Abolmaesumi, and T. Kapur, “Confidence calibration and predictive uncertainty estimation for deep medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 3868–3878, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Asymmetric ensemble of asymmetric u-net models for brain tumor segmentation with uncertainty estimation,

    S. Rosas-Gonzalez, T. Birgui-Sekou, M. Hidane, I. Zemmoura, and C. Tauber, “Asymmetric ensemble of asymmetric u-net models for brain tumor segmentation with uncertainty estimation,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 12, p. 609646, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Evidence-based uncertainty-aware semi- supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Chen, Z. Yang, C. Shen, Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Qin, X. Wei, J. Lu, Y . Liu, and Y . Zhang, “Evidence-based uncertainty-aware semi- supervised medical image segmentation,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 170, p. 108004, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Epl: Evidential prototype learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . He, “Epl: Evidential prototype learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06181 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Duedl: Dual- branch evidential deep learning for scribble-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Yang, X. Xu, H. Hu, H. Long, Q. Zhou, and Q. Guan, “Duedl: Dual- branch evidential deep learning for scribble-supervised medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14444 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    An evidential- enhanced tri-branch consistency learning method for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Z. Zhang, H. Zhou, X. Shi, R. Ran, C. Tian, and F. Zhou, “An evidential- enhanced tri-branch consistency learning method for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07032 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Tbrats: Trusted brain tumor segmentation,

    K. Zou, X. Yuan, X. Shen, M. Wang, and H. Fu, “Tbrats: Trusted brain tumor segmentation,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention . Springer, 2022, pp. 503–513

    2022

  39. [47]

    A generalization of bayesian inference,

    A. P. Dempster, “A generalization of bayesian inference,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 205–232, 1968

    1968

  40. [48]

    Jsang, Subjective Logic: A formalism for reasoning under uncertainty

    A. Jsang, Subjective Logic: A formalism for reasoning under uncertainty . Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Dataset of breast ultrasound images,

    W. Al-Dhabyani, M. Gomaa, H. Khaled, and A. Fahmy, “Dataset of breast ultrasound images,” Data in brief , vol. 28, p. 104863, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    An open access thyroid ultrasound image database,

    L. Pedraza, C. Vargas, F. Narv ´aez, O. Dur´an, E. Mu ˜noz, and E. Romero, “An open access thyroid ultrasound image database,” in 10th Interna- tional Symposium on Medical Information Processing and Analysis , vol

  43. [51]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Video-based ai for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function,

    D. Ouyang, B. He, A. Ghorbani, N. Yuan, J. Ebinger, C. P. Langlotz, P. A. Heidenreich, R. A. Harrington, D. H. Liang, E. A. Ashley et al. , “Video-based ai for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function,” Nature, vol. 580, no. 7802, pp. 252–256, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation,

    J. Chen, Y . Lu, Q. Yu, X. Luo, E. Adeli, Y . Wang, L. Lu, A. L. Yuille, and Y . Zhou, “Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Segnet: A deep con- volutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,

    V . Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla, “Segnet: A deep con- volutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2481–2495, 2017

    2017

  47. [56]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  48. [9287]

    SPIE, 2015, pp. 188–193

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.