Recalibration of Aleatoric and EpistemicRegression Uncertainty in Medical Imaging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consideration of predictive uncertainty in medical imaging with deep learning is of utmost importance. We apply estimation of both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty by variational Bayesian inference with Monte Carlo dropout to regression tasks and show that predictive uncertainty is systematically underestimated. We apply sigma scaling with a single scalar value; a simple, yet effective calibration method for both types of uncertainty. The performance of our approach is evaluated on a variety of common medical regression data sets using different state-of-the-art convolutional network architectures. In our experiments, sigma scaling is able to reliably recalibrate predictive uncertainty. It is easy to implement and maintains the accuracy. Well-calibrated uncertainty in regression allows robust rejection of unreliable predictions or detection of out-of-distribution samples. Our source code is available at: https://github.com/mlaves/well-calibrated-regression-uncertainty
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it