QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 Challenge on Quantifying Uncertainty in Brain Tumor Segmentation - Analysis of Ranking Scores and Benchmarking Results
Authors:
Raghav Mehta,
Angelos Filos,
Ujjwal Baid,
Chiharu Sako,
Richard McKinley,
Michael Rebsamen,
Katrin Datwyler,
Raphael Meier,
Piotr Radojewski,
Gowtham Krishnan Murugesan,
Sahil Nalawade,
Chandan Ganesh,
Ben Wagner,
Fang F. Yu,
Baowei Fei,
Ananth J. Madhuranthakam,
Joseph A. Maldjian,
Laura Daza,
Catalina Gomez,
Pablo Arbelaez,
Chengliang Dai,
Shuo Wang,
Hadrien Reynaud,
Yuan-han Mo,
Elsa Angelini
, et al. (67 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Deep learning (DL) models have provided state-of-the-art performance in various medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder translating DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying…
▽ More
Deep learning (DL) models have provided state-of-the-art performance in various medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder translating DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying the reliability of DL model predictions in the form of uncertainties could enable clinical review of the most uncertain regions, thereby building trust and paving the way toward clinical translation. Several uncertainty estimation methods have recently been introduced for DL medical image segmentation tasks. Develo** scores to evaluate and compare the performance of uncertainty measures will assist the end-user in making more informed decisions. In this study, we explore and evaluate a score developed during the BraTS 2019 and BraTS 2020 task on uncertainty quantification (QU-BraTS) and designed to assess and rank uncertainty estimates for brain tumor multi-compartment segmentation. This score (1) rewards uncertainty estimates that produce high confidence in correct assertions and those that assign low confidence levels at incorrect assertions, and (2) penalizes uncertainty measures that lead to a higher percentage of under-confident correct assertions. We further benchmark the segmentation uncertainties generated by 14 independent participating teams of QU-BraTS 2020, all of which also participated in the main BraTS segmentation task. Overall, our findings confirm the importance and complementary value that uncertainty estimates provide to segmentation algorithms, highlighting the need for uncertainty quantification in medical image analyses. Finally, in favor of transparency and reproducibility, our evaluation code is made publicly available at: https://github.com/RagMeh11/QU-BraTS.
△ Less
Submitted 23 August, 2022; v1 submitted 19 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
Uncertainty Evaluation Metric for Brain Tumour Segmentation
Authors:
Raghav Mehta,
Angelos Filos,
Yarin Gal,
Tal Arbel
Abstract:
In this paper, we develop a metric designed to assess and rank uncertainty measures for the task of brain tumour sub-tissue segmentation in the BraTS 2019 sub-challenge on uncertainty quantification. The metric is designed to: (1) reward uncertainty measures where high confidence is assigned to correct assertions, and where incorrect assertions are assigned low confidence and (2) penalize measures…
▽ More
In this paper, we develop a metric designed to assess and rank uncertainty measures for the task of brain tumour sub-tissue segmentation in the BraTS 2019 sub-challenge on uncertainty quantification. The metric is designed to: (1) reward uncertainty measures where high confidence is assigned to correct assertions, and where incorrect assertions are assigned low confidence and (2) penalize measures that have higher percentages of under-confident correct assertions. Here, the workings of the components of the metric are explored based on a number of popular uncertainty measures evaluated on the BraTS 2019 dataset.
△ Less
Submitted 28 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
A Systematic Comparison of Bayesian Deep Learning Robustness in Diabetic Retinopathy Tasks
Authors:
Angelos Filos,
Sebastian Farquhar,
Aidan N. Gomez,
Tim G. J. Rudner,
Zachary Kenton,
Lewis Smith,
Milad Alizadeh,
Arnoud de Kroon,
Yarin Gal
Abstract:
Evaluation of Bayesian deep learning (BDL) methods is challenging. We often seek to evaluate the methods' robustness and scalability, assessing whether new tools give `better' uncertainty estimates than old ones. These evaluations are paramount for practitioners when choosing BDL tools on-top of which they build their applications. Current popular evaluations of BDL methods, such as the UCI experi…
▽ More
Evaluation of Bayesian deep learning (BDL) methods is challenging. We often seek to evaluate the methods' robustness and scalability, assessing whether new tools give `better' uncertainty estimates than old ones. These evaluations are paramount for practitioners when choosing BDL tools on-top of which they build their applications. Current popular evaluations of BDL methods, such as the UCI experiments, are lacking: Methods that excel with these experiments often fail when used in application such as medical or automotive, suggesting a pertinent need for new benchmarks in the field. We propose a new BDL benchmark with a diverse set of tasks, inspired by a real-world medical imaging application on \emph{diabetic retinopathy diagnosis}. Visual inputs (512x512 RGB images of retinas) are considered, where model uncertainty is used for medical pre-screening---i.e. to refer patients to an expert when model diagnosis is uncertain. Methods are then ranked according to metrics derived from expert-domain to reflect real-world use of model uncertainty in automated diagnosis. We develop multiple tasks that fall under this application, including out-of-distribution detection and robustness to distribution shift. We then perform a systematic comparison of well-tuned BDL techniques on the various tasks. From our comparison we conclude that some current techniques which solve benchmarks such as UCI `overfit' their uncertainty to the dataset---when evaluated on our benchmark these underperform in comparison to simpler baselines. The code for the benchmark, its baselines, and a simple API for evaluating new BDL tools are made available at https://github.com/oatml/bdl-benchmarks.
△ Less
Submitted 22 December, 2019;
originally announced December 2019.
