arXiv Computer Vision By Savvas Saragiotis, Pieter C. Gort, Lotte J. S. Fleurkens-Ewals, Anna F. van Herwijnen, Marion Tops-Welten, L. D. Kampmeijer, Joost Nederend, Fons van der Sommen

Evaluating the Effects of Inter-Observer and Model Variability on Radiological Peritoneal Cancer Index Assessment

Read the original on arXiv Computer Vision →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 2

Foundation Models vs. Radiomics for Lung Computed Tomography: A Benchmark of Feature Extractors, Classification Heads, and Segmentation Choices

arXiv:2607. 01001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Radiomics is the established approach for CT-based lung cancer phenotyping, yet comparisons with foundation models rarely isolate contributions of feature extractor, classification head, and segmentation choice, or test cross-cohort robustness.

By Nils Neukirch, Martin Maurer, Nils Strodthoff
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 28

Trustworthy Medical Segmentation: Uncertainty-Aware U-Net Evaluation Under Clinical Image Degradation

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.

By Pranav Kaliaperumal, Manisha Kaliaperumal
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 9

Metrics or Mirage? An Audit of Evaluation Inconsistencies in Colonoscopy Polyp Segmentation Benchmarks

Progress in colonoscopy polyp segmentation is routinely reported through leaderboard comparisons on a small set of public benchmarks. We argue that this apparent progress is difficult to verify: a systematic audit of \textbf{27 papers} published between 2015 and 2026 reveals three structural problems in how the community evaluates models.