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.

Resolution Invariant Autoencoder

Deep learning has significantly advanced medical imaging analysis, yet variations in image resolution remain an overlooked challenge. Most methods address this by resampling images, leading to either information loss or computational inefficiencies. While solutions exist for specific tasks, no unified approach has been proposed. We introduce a resolution-invariant autoencoder that adapts spatial resizing at each layer in the network via a learned variable resizing process, replacing fixed spatial down/upsampling at the traditional factor of 2. This ensures a consistent latent space resolution, regardless of input or output resolution. Our model enables various downstream tasks to be performed on an image latent whilst maintaining performance across different resolutions, overcoming the shortfalls of traditional methods. We demonstrate its effectiveness in uncertainty-aware super-resolution, classification, and generative modelling tasks and show how our method outperforms conventional baselines with minimal performance loss across resolutions.

A cautionary tale on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative AI in real-world medical applications

Background. Federated learning (FL) has gained wide popularity as a collaborative learning paradigm enabling collaborative AI in sensitive healthcare applications. Nevertheless, the practical implementation of FL presents technical and organizational challenges, as it generally requires complex communication infrastructures. In this context, consensus-based learning (CBL) may represent a promising collaborative learning alternative, thanks to the ability of combining local knowledge into a federated decision system, while potentially reducing deployment overhead. Methods. In this work we propose an extensive benchmark of the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of a panel of FL and CBL methods in a wide range of collaborative medical data analysis scenarios. The benchmark includes 7 different medical datasets, encompassing 3 machine learning tasks, 8 different data modalities, and multi-centric settings involving 3 to 23 clients. Findings. Our results reveal that CBL is a cost-effective alternative to FL. When compared across the panel of medical dataset in the considered benchmark, CBL methods provide equivalent accuracy to the one achieved by FL.Nonetheless, CBL significantly reduces training time and communication cost (resp. 15 fold and 60 fold decrease) (p < 0.05). Interpretation. This study opens a novel perspective on the deployment of collaborative AI in real-world applications, whereas the adoption of cost-effective methods is instrumental to achieve sustainability and democratisation of AI by alleviating the need for extensive computational resources.

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.

Benchmarking Collaborative Learning Methods Cost-Effectiveness for Prostate Segmentation

Healthcare data is often split into medium/small-sized collections across multiple hospitals and access to it is encumbered by privacy regulations. This brings difficulties to use them for the development of machine learning and deep learning models, which are known to be data-hungry. One way to overcome this limitation is to use collaborative learning (CL) methods, which allow hospitals to work collaboratively to solve a task, without the need to explicitly share local data. In this paper, we address a prostate segmentation problem from MRI in a collaborative scenario by comparing two different approaches: federated learning (FL) and consensus-based methods (CBM). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work in which CBM, such as label fusion techniques, are used to solve a problem of collaborative learning. In this setting, CBM combine predictions from locally trained models to obtain a federated strong learner with ideally improved robustness and predictive variance properties. Our experiments show that, in the considered practical scenario, CBMs provide equal or better results than FL, while being highly cost-effective. Our results demonstrate that the consensus paradigm may represent a valid alternative to FL for typical training tasks in medical imaging.

DeepEdit: Deep Editable Learning for Interactive Segmentation of 3D Medical Images

Automatic segmentation of medical images is a key step for diagnostic and interventional tasks. However, achieving this requires large amounts of annotated volumes, which can be tedious and time-consuming task for expert annotators. In this paper, we introduce DeepEdit, a deep learning-based method for volumetric medical image annotation, that allows automatic and semi-automatic segmentation, and click-based refinement. DeepEdit combines the power of two methods: a non-interactive (i.e. automatic segmentation using nnU-Net, UNET or UNETR) and an interactive segmentation method (i.e. DeepGrow), into a single deep learning model. It allows easy integration of uncertainty-based ranking strategies (i.e. aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty computation) and active learning. We propose and implement a method for training DeepEdit by using standard training combined with user interaction simulation. Once trained, DeepEdit allows clinicians to quickly segment their datasets by using the algorithm in auto segmentation mode or by providing clicks via a user interface (i.e. 3D Slicer, OHIF). We show the value of DeepEdit through evaluation on the PROSTATEx dataset for prostate/prostatic lesions and the Multi-Atlas Labeling Beyond the Cranial Vault (BTCV) dataset for abdominal CT segmentation, using state-of-the-art network architectures as baseline for comparison. DeepEdit could reduce the time and effort annotating 3D medical images compared to DeepGrow alone. Source code is available at https://github.com/Project-MONAI/MONAILabel

Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation

Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation.

Metrics reloaded: Pitfalls and recommendations for image analysis validation

The field of automatic biomedical image analysis crucially depends on robust and meaningful performance metrics for algorithm validation. Current metric usage, however, is often ill-informed and does not reflect the underlying domain interest. Here, we present a comprehensive framework that guides researchers towards choosing performance metrics in a problem-aware manner. Specifically, we focus on biomedical image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level. The framework first compiles domain interest-, target structure-, data set- and algorithm output-related properties of a given problem into a problem fingerprint, while also mapping it to the appropriate problem category, namely image-level classification, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, or object detection. It then guides users through the process of selecting and applying a set of appropriate validation metrics while making them aware of potential pitfalls related to individual choices. In this paper, we describe the current status of the Metrics Reloaded recommendation framework, with the goal of obtaining constructive feedback from the image analysis community. The current version has been developed within an international consortium of more than 60 image analysis experts and will be made openly available as a user-friendly toolkit after community-driven optimization.

The Medical Segmentation Decathlon

International challenges have become the de facto standard for comparative assessment of image analysis algorithms given a specific task. Segmentation is so far the most widely investigated medical image processing task, but the various segmentation challenges have typically been organized in isolation, such that algorithm development was driven by the need to tackle a single specific clinical problem. We hypothesized that a method capable of performing well on multiple tasks will generalize well to a previously unseen task and potentially outperform a custom-designed solution. To investigate the hypothesis, we organized the Medical Segmentation Decathlon (MSD) - a biomedical image analysis challenge, in which algorithms compete in a multitude of both tasks and modalities. The underlying data set was designed to explore the axis of difficulties typically encountered when dealing with medical images, such as small data sets, unbalanced labels, multi-site data and small objects. The MSD challenge confirmed that algorithms with a consistent good performance on a set of tasks preserved their good average performance on a different set of previously unseen tasks. Moreover, by monitoring the MSD winner for two years, we found that this algorithm continued generalizing well to a wide range of other clinical problems, further confirming our hypothesis. Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study: (1) state-of-the-art image segmentation algorithms are mature, accurate, and generalize well when retrained on unseen tasks; (2) consistent algorithmic performance across multiple tasks is a strong surrogate of algorithmic generalizability; (3) the training of accurate AI segmentation models is now commoditized to non AI experts.

Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Story

While the importance of automatic image analysis is increasing at an enormous pace, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Specifically, performance metrics are key for objective, transparent and comparative performance assessment, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using specific metrics for a given image analysis task. A common mission of several international initiatives is therefore to provide researchers with guidelines and tools to choose the performance metrics in a problem-aware manner. This dynamically updated document has the purpose to illustrate important limitations of performance metrics commonly applied in the field of image analysis. The current version is based on a Delphi process on metrics conducted by an international consortium of image analysis experts.