arXiv:2606. 20115v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Conformal risk control (CRC) provides distribution-free segmentation guarantees by calibrating a prediction-set threshold on held-out data.
arXiv:2606. 20115v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conformal risk control (CRC) provides distribution-free guarantees on segmentation quality by calibrating a prediction-set threshold on held-out data.
The paper introduces a missingness‑aware conformal calibration method for mortality prediction that accounts for cross‑hospital distribution shifts. By selecting a measurement on an independent sample, grouping patients by whether that measurement is recorded, and applying Mondrian calibration within each group, the method avoids reusing calibration outcomes. Experiments on eICU and MIMIC‑IV data show that, compared to pooled calibration, it reduces the worst‑group coverage gap by a median of 1.9 percentage points across six settings, though the benefit varies with predictor and hospital.
arXiv:2606. 19300v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Glioma segmentation in multiparametric MRI is a critical component of treatment planning.
arXiv:2609.38112v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many applications of black-box predictive models require controlling task-relevant error rates, such as missed lesion pixels in segmentation or misse...
arXiv:2607. 16317v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep networks now subtype brain tumors on MRI about as well as specialist readers, yet accuracy is not what keeps them out of the clinic.
arXiv:2606. 08305v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Externally controlled survival trials are increasingly used when concurrent randomized controls are infeasible, particularly in oncology and rare-disease settings with time-to-event endpoints.
The paper presents a distribution‑free risk‑control framework that provides organ‑specific recall guarantees for frozen multi‑organ CT segmentation models. It calibrates per‑organ thresholds for an AMOS‑trained nnU‑Net, audits its transfer to RAOS, and estimates local re‑certification costs using case‑level voxel false‑negative rates. The study compares Risk‑Controlling Prediction Sets (RCPS) and Conformal Risk Control (CRC), noting that RCPS offers high‑probability control of population‑mean risk while CRC provides weaker expectation control, and evaluates the effectiveness of the Waudby–Smith–Ramdas betting bound versus Hoeffding–Bentkus bounds for re‑certification. "whyItMatters":"The work demonstrates how to maintain organ‑level recall guarantees when deploying segmentation models across different clinical domains, highlighting the trade‑offs between threshold conservatism and re‑certification effort."
arXiv:2610.01452v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While state-of-the-art automated models for medical image segmentation achieve high mean performance, they frequently suffer from localized, catastroph...
The paper introduces a distribution‑free risk control method that provides organ‑specific recall guarantees for frozen segmentation models. It calibrates per‑organ thresholds on an AMOS‑trained nnU‑Net, audits transfer to RAOS, and estimates local re‑certification cost using case‑level voxel false‑negative rates. The study compares Risk‑Controlling Prediction Sets (RCPS) and Conformal Risk Control (CRC), noting that RCPS offers high‑probability control of population‑mean risk while CRC provides weaker expectation control, and evaluates the effectiveness of the Waudby‑Smith‑Ramdas betting bound versus Hoeffding‑Bentkus bounds for re‑certification of Tier‑1 organs.
The paper introduces RouteCert, a method for ensuring risk control in multimodal systems that acquire inputs adaptively. It shows that conditional calibration can remain valid even when the acquisition policy determines the calibration group, and provides two finite‑sample constructions: threshold‑free routing with terminal‑pattern calibration and simultaneous validation of policy‑pattern pairs. Experiments on a clinical ECG task and masked multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that RouteCert achieves low disagreement rates and competitive answered fractions while validating each acquisition stage separately.
arXiv:2607. 22727v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical image segmentation models often report high benchmark accuracy under ideal imaging conditions, yet their failures under clinical degradation can be quiet: sensor noise, patient motion, low- resolution acquisition, and contrast variability may all alter model behavior without producing an obvious warning.
arXiv:2607. 17442v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Background.