Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Victor Wåhlstrand

Publications and source records attributed to Victor Wåhlstrand.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Exemplar Diffusion: Improving Medical Object Detection with Opportunistic Labels

We present a framework to take advantage of existing labels at inference, called \textit{exemplars}, in order to improve the performance of object detection in medical images. The method, \textit{exemplar diffusion}, leverages existing diffusion methods for object detection to enable a training-free approach to adding information of known bounding boxes at test time. We demonstrate that for medical image datasets with clear spatial structure, the method yields an across-the-board increase in average precision and recall, and a robustness to exemplar quality, enabling non-expert annotation. Moreover, we demonstrate how our method may also be used to quantify predictive uncertainty in diffusion detection methods. Source code and data splits openly available online: https://github.com/waahlstrand/ExemplarDiffusion

cs.CV↗

Impact of deep learning model uncertainty on manual corrections to auto-segmentation in prostate cancer radiotherapy

Background: Deep learning (DL)-based organ segmentation is increasingly used in radiotherapy, yet voxel-wise DL uncertainty maps are rarely presented to clinicians. Purpose: This study assessed how DL-generated uncertainty maps impact radiation oncologists during manual correction of prostate radiotherapy DL segmentations. Methods: Two nnUNet models were trained by 10-fold cross-validation on 434 MRI-only prostate cancer cases to segment the prostate and rectum. Each model was evaluated on 35 independent cases. Voxel-wise uncertainty was calculated using the SoftMax standard deviation (n=10) and visualized as a color-coded map. Four oncologists performed segmentation in two steps: Step 1: Rated segmentation quality and confidence using Likert scales and edited DL segmentations without uncertainty maps. Step 2 ($\geq 4$ weeks later): Repeated step 1, but with uncertainty maps available. Segmentation time was recorded for both steps, and oncologists provided qualitative free-text feedback. Histogram analysis compared voxel edits across uncertainty levels. Results: DL segmentations showed high agreement with oncologist edits. Quality ratings varied: rectum segmentation ratings slightly decreased overall in step 2, while prostate ratings differed among oncologists. Confidence ratings also varied. Three oncologists reduced segmentation time with uncertainty maps, saving 1-2 minutes per case. Histogram analysis showed 50% fewer edits for step 2 in low-uncertainty areas. Conclusions: Presenting DL segmentation uncertainty information to radiation oncologists influences their decision-making, quality perception, and confidence in the DL segmentations. Low-uncertainty regions were edited less frequently, indicating increased trust in DL predictions. Uncertainty maps improve efficiency by reducing segmentation time and can be a valuable clinical tool, enhancing radiotherapy planning efficiency.

physics.med-ph↗