The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.
arXiv:2609.17545v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep learning models for cervical cytology are almost always evaluated as if every prediction must be acted upon, yet a screening system deployed along...
The paper introduces a dual cross‑attention deep learning framework for automated grading of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) and prediction of Swede scores, using a newly released BUET Multi‑Center Colposcopy Dataset. The architecture fuses paired multimodal cervigrams and employs a custom composite loss to handle class imbalance, achieving 71.85% accuracy and 86.23% AUC‑ROC for three‑class CIN grading, and AUC‑ROC values between 75.7% and 88.4% for individual Swede score components. The total predicted Swede Score has a mean absolute error of 1.489, indicating potential for AI‑assisted colposcopy screening in resource‑limited settings.
arXiv:2607. 12075v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Background: Deep learning models can classify thyroid nodules on ultrasound, but reliable clinical decision support also requires calibrated probabilities, uncertainty estimation, and selective referral, particularly under dataset shift.
arXiv:2608.22059v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pretrained image encoders are central to medical image classification, where expert annotation is costly and task-specific cohorts are often limited....
The study evaluates the reliability of deep‑ensemble uncertainty for brain tumour segmentation on the BraTS‑GoAT dataset. A 5‑fold cross‑validated nnU‑Net baseline and a 3‑seed deep ensemble were compared for calibration and error detection; the ensemble showed modest gains in calibration on in‑distribution data but the single model’s confidence remained flat while accuracy degraded under synthetic corruptions. Disagreement among ensemble members rose sharply with corruption severity, proving to be a more sensitive indicator of acquisition shift than single‑model confidence.
arXiv:2608. 14768v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Skin lesion classifiers can be confidently wrong on the cases that matter most, so knowing when a prediction should not be trusted is clinically as useful as the prediction.