Challenging Vision-Language Models with Surgical Data: A New Dataset and Broad Benchmarking Study

While traditional computer vision models have historically struggled to generalize to endoscopic domains, the emergence of foundation models has shown promising cross-domain performance. In this work, we present the first large-scale study assessing the capabilities of Vision Language Models (VLMs) for endoscopic tasks with a specific focus on laparoscopic surgery. Using a diverse set of state-of-the-art models, multiple surgical datasets, and extensive human reference annotations, we address three key research questions: (1) Can current VLMs solve basic perception tasks on surgical images? (2) Can they handle advanced frame-based endoscopic scene understanding tasks? and (3) How do specialized medical VLMs compare to generalist models in this context? Our results reveal that VLMs can effectively perform basic surgical perception tasks, such as object counting and localization, with performance levels comparable to general domain tasks. However, their performance deteriorates significantly when the tasks require medical knowledge. Notably, we find that specialized medical VLMs currently underperform compared to generalist models across both basic and advanced surgical tasks, suggesting that they are not yet optimized for the complexity of surgical environments. These findings highlight the need for further advancements to enable VLMs to handle the unique challenges posed by surgery. Overall, our work provides important insights for the development of next-generation endoscopic AI systems and identifies key areas for improvement in medical visual language models.

False Promises in Medical Imaging AI? Assessing Validity of Outperformance Claims

Performance comparisons are fundamental in medical imaging Artificial Intelligence (AI) research, often driving claims of superiority based on relative improvements in common performance metrics. However, such claims frequently rely solely on empirical mean performance. In this paper, we investigate whether newly proposed methods genuinely outperform the state of the art by analyzing a representative cohort of medical imaging papers. We quantify the probability of false claims based on a Bayesian approach that leverages reported results alongside empirically estimated model congruence to estimate whether the relative ranking of methods is likely to have occurred by chance. According to our results, the majority (>80%) of papers claims outperformance when introducing a new method. Our analysis further revealed a high probability (>5%) of false outperformance claims in 86% of classification papers and 53% of segmentation papers. These findings highlight a critical flaw in current benchmarking practices: claims of outperformance in medical imaging AI are frequently unsubstantiated, posing a risk of misdirecting future research efforts.

Bridging vision language model (VLM) evaluation gaps with a framework for scalable and cost-effective benchmark generation

Reliable evaluation of AI models is critical for scientific progress and practical application. While existing VLM benchmarks provide general insights into model capabilities, their heterogeneous designs and limited focus on a few imaging domains pose significant challenges for both cross-domain performance comparison and targeted domain-specific evaluation. To address this, we propose three key contributions: (1) a framework for the resource-efficient creation of domain-specific VLM benchmarks enabled by task augmentation for creating multiple diverse tasks from a single existing task, (2) the release of new VLM benchmarks for seven domains, created according to the same homogeneous protocol and including 162,946 thoroughly human-validated answers, and (3) an extensive benchmarking of 22 state-of-the-art VLMs on a total of 37,171 tasks, revealing performance variances across domains and tasks, thereby supporting the need for tailored VLM benchmarks. Adoption of our methodology will pave the way for the resource-efficient domain-specific selection of models and guide future research efforts toward addressing core open questions.

Confidence intervals uncovered: Are we ready for real-world medical imaging AI?

Medical imaging is spearheading the AI transformation of healthcare. Performance reporting is key to determine which methods should be translated into clinical practice. Frequently, broad conclusions are simply derived from mean performance values. In this paper, we argue that this common practice is often a misleading simplification as it ignores performance variability. Our contribution is threefold. (1) Analyzing all MICCAI segmentation papers (n = 221) published in 2023, we first observe that more than 50% of papers do not assess performance variability at all. Moreover, only one (0.5%) paper reported confidence intervals (CIs) for model performance. (2) To address the reporting bottleneck, we show that the unreported standard deviation (SD) in segmentation papers can be approximated by a second-order polynomial function of the mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Based on external validation data from 56 previous MICCAI challenges, we demonstrate that this approximation can accurately reconstruct the CI of a method using information provided in publications. (3) Finally, we reconstructed 95% CIs around the mean DSC of MICCAI 2023 segmentation papers. The median CI width was 0.03 which is three times larger than the median performance gap between the first and second ranked method. For more than 60% of papers, the mean performance of the second-ranked method was within the CI of the first-ranked method. We conclude that current publications typically do not provide sufficient evidence to support which models could potentially be translated into clinical practice.

Quality Assured: Rethinking Annotation Strategies in Imaging AI

This paper does not describe a novel method. Instead, it studies an essential foundation for reliable benchmarking and ultimately real-world application of AI-based image analysis: generating high-quality reference annotations. Previous research has focused on crowdsourcing as a means of outsourcing annotations. However, little attention has so far been given to annotation companies, specifically regarding their internal quality assurance (QA) processes. Therefore, our aim is to evaluate the influence of QA employed by annotation companies on annotation quality and devise methodologies for maximizing data annotation efficacy. Based on a total of 57,648 instance segmented images obtained from a total of 924 annotators and 34 QA workers from four annotation companies and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we derived the following insights: (1) Annotation companies perform better both in terms of quantity and quality compared to the widely used platform MTurk. (2) Annotation companies' internal QA only provides marginal improvements, if any. However, improving labeling instructions instead of investing in QA can substantially boost annotation performance. (3) The benefit of internal QA depends on specific image characteristics. Our work could enable researchers to derive substantially more value from a fixed annotation budget and change the way annotation companies conduct internal QA.

FISBe: A real-world benchmark dataset for instance segmentation of long-range thin filamentous structures

Instance segmentation of neurons in volumetric light microscopy images of nervous systems enables groundbreaking research in neuroscience by facilitating joint functional and morphological analyses of neural circuits at cellular resolution. Yet said multi-neuron light microscopy data exhibits extremely challenging properties for the task of instance segmentation: Individual neurons have long-ranging, thin filamentous and widely branching morphologies, multiple neurons are tightly inter-weaved, and partial volume effects, uneven illumination and noise inherent to light microscopy severely impede local disentangling as well as long-range tracing of individual neurons. These properties reflect a current key challenge in machine learning research, namely to effectively capture long-range dependencies in the data. While respective methodological research is buzzing, to date methods are typically benchmarked on synthetic datasets. To address this gap, we release the FlyLight Instance Segmentation Benchmark (FISBe) dataset, the first publicly available multi-neuron light microscopy dataset with pixel-wise annotations. In addition, we define a set of instance segmentation metrics for benchmarking that we designed to be meaningful with regard to downstream analyses. Lastly, we provide three baselines to kick off a competition that we envision to both advance the field of machine learning regarding methodology for capturing long-range data dependencies, and facilitate scientific discovery in basic neuroscience.

Panoptica -- instance-wise evaluation of 3D semantic and instance segmentation maps

This paper introduces panoptica, a versatile and performance-optimized package designed for computing instance-wise segmentation quality metrics from 2D and 3D segmentation maps. panoptica addresses the limitations of existing metrics and provides a modular framework that complements the original intersection over union-based panoptic quality with other metrics, such as the distance metric Average Symmetric Surface Distance. The package is open-source, implemented in Python, and accompanied by comprehensive documentation and tutorials. panoptica employs a three-step metrics computation process to cover diverse use cases. The efficacy of panoptica is demonstrated on various real-world biomedical datasets, where an instance-wise evaluation is instrumental for an accurate representation of the underlying clinical task. Overall, we envision panoptica as a valuable tool facilitating in-depth evaluation of segmentation methods.

Application-driven Validation of Posteriors in Inverse Problems

Current deep learning-based solutions for image analysis tasks are commonly incapable of handling problems to which multiple different plausible solutions exist. In response, posterior-based methods such as conditional Diffusion Models and Invertible Neural Networks have emerged; however, their translation is hampered by a lack of research on adequate validation. In other words, the way progress is measured often does not reflect the needs of the driving practical application. Closing this gap in the literature, we present the first systematic framework for the application-driven validation of posterior-based methods in inverse problems. As a methodological novelty, it adopts key principles from the field of object detection validation, which has a long history of addressing the question of how to locate and match multiple object instances in an image. Treating modes as instances enables us to perform mode-centric validation, using well-interpretable metrics from the application perspective. We demonstrate the value of our framework through instantiations for a synthetic toy example and two medical vision use cases: pose estimation in surgery and imaging-based quantification of functional tissue parameters for diagnostics. Our framework offers key advantages over common approaches to posterior validation in all three examples and could thus revolutionize performance assessment in inverse problems.

Challenge Results Are Not Reproducible

While clinical trials are the state-of-the-art methods to assess the effect of new medication in a comparative manner, benchmarking in the field of medical image analysis is performed by so-called challenges. Recently, comprehensive analysis of multiple biomedical image analysis challenges revealed large discrepancies between the impact of challenges and quality control of the design and reporting standard. This work aims to follow up on these results and attempts to address the specific question of the reproducibility of the participants methods. In an effort to determine whether alternative interpretations of the method description may change the challenge ranking, we reproduced the algorithms submitted to the 2019 Robust Medical Image Segmentation Challenge (ROBUST-MIS). The leaderboard differed substantially between the original challenge and reimplementation, indicating that challenge rankings may not be sufficiently reproducible.

Why is the winner the best?

International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multi-center study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and postprocessing (66%). The "typical" lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work.