Abstract
Performance metrics for medical image segmentation models are used to measure agreement between the reference annotation and the prediction. A common set of metrics is used in the development of such models to make results more comparable. However, there is a mismatch between the distributions in public data sets and cases encountered in clinical practice. Many common metrics fail to measure the impact of this mismatch, especially for clinical data sets containing uncertain, small or empty reference annotation. Thus, models may not be validated for clinically meaningful agreement by such metrics. Dimensions of evaluating clinical value include independence from reference annotation volume size, consideration of uncertainty of reference annotations, reward of volumetric and/or location agreement and reward of correct classification of empty reference annotations. Unlike common public data sets, our in-house data set is more representative. It contains uncertain, small or empty reference annotations. We examine publicly available metrics on the predictions of a deep learning framework in order to identify for which settings common metrics provide clinical meaningful results. We compare to a public benchmark data set without uncertain, small or empty reference annotations. The code will be published.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13008
