arXiv:2509. 05238v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Deep learning (DL) has transformed neuroimaging by delivering state-of-the-art performance with reduced computation times.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 15837v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep neural networks (DNNs) frequently fail to generalize to out-of-distribution (OOD) medical images because of variations in scanners and acquisition protocols.
arXiv:2609.06729v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Accurate 3D brain tumour segmentation from multi-modal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is essential for clinical diagnosis and treatment planning....
arXiv:2608. 14766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Uncertainty estimation is critical for the safe clinical deployment of deep learning in medical image segmentation, with aleatoric uncertainty theoretically designed to capture irreducible data ambiguity.
The paper introduces an uncertainty‑driven training framework for 3D CT lung nodule classification that uses validation‑based uncertainty estimates to reweight the loss, aiming to improve predictive performance and probability calibration. Two uncertainty quantification methods—Monte Carlo Dropout and Evidential Deep Learning—are evaluated across multiple backbone architectures (ResNet, DenseNet, EfficientNet, ViT, Swin) on the LIDC‑IDRI and NoduleMNIST3D datasets. The approach yields comparable classification accuracy to conventional training while substantially reducing expected calibration error, especially on convolutional backbones, and shows that simple temperature scaling can also achieve strong calibration.
arXiv:2609.06807v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this work, we comprehensively evaluate three popular feature-extraction paradigms in AI-based neuroimaging modeling: (1) computation of anatomical...
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.