Performance uncertainty in medical image analysis: a large-scale investigation of confidence intervals

Performance uncertainty quantification is essential for reliable validation and eventual clinical translation of medical imaging artificial intelligence (AI). Confidence intervals (CIs) play a central role in this process by indicating how precise a reported performance estimate is. Yet, due to the limited amount of work examining CI behavior in medical imaging, the community remains largely unaware of how many diverse CI methods exist and how they behave in specific settings. The purpose of this study is to close this gap. To this end, we conducted a large-scale empirical analysis across a total of 24 segmentation and classification tasks, using 19 trained models per task group, a broad spectrum of commonly used performance metrics, multiple aggregation strategies, and several widely adopted CI methods. Reliability (coverage) and precision (width) of each CI method were estimated across all settings to characterize their dependence on study characteristics. Our analysis revealed five principal findings: 1) the sample size required for reliable CIs varies from a few dozens to several thousands of cases depending on study parameters; 2) CI behavior is strongly affected by the choice of performance metric; 3) aggregation strategy substantially influences the reliability of CIs, e.g. they require more observations for macro than for micro; 4) the machine learning problem (segmentation versus classification) modulates these effects; 5) different CI methods are not equally reliable and precise depending on the use case. These results form key components for the development of future guidelines on reporting performance uncertainty in medical imaging AI.

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.