Quantifying the uncertainty of deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis for patient safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, we discuss epistemic uncertainty estimation obtained by Bayesian inference in diagnostic classifiers and show that the prediction uncertainty highly correlates with goodness of prediction. We train the ResNet-18 image classifier on a dataset of 84,484 optical coherence tomography scans showing four different retinal conditions. Dropout is added before every building block of ResNet, creating an approximation to a Bayesian classifier. Monte Carlo sampling is applied with dropout at test time for uncertainty estimation. In Monte Carlo experiments, multiple forward passes are performed to get a distribution of the class labels. The variance and the entropy of the distribution is used as metrics for uncertainty. Our results show strong correlation with ρ = 0.99 between prediction uncertainty and prediction error. Mean uncertainty of incorrectly diagnosed cases was significantly higher than mean uncertainty of correctly diagnosed cases. Modeling of the prediction uncertainty in computer-aided diagnosis with deep learning yields more reliable results and is therefore expected to increase patient safety. This will help to transfer such systems into clinical routine and to increase the acceptance of machine learning in diagnosis from the standpoint of physicians and patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".