ROOD-MRI: Benchmarking the robustness of deep learning segmentation models to out-of-distribution and corrupted data in MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep artificial neural networks (DNNs) have moved to the forefront of medical image analysis due to their success in classification, segmentation, and detection challenges. A principal challenge in large-scale deployment of DNNs in neuroimage analysis is the potential for shifts in signal-to-noise ratio, contrast, resolution, and presence of artifacts from site to site due to variances in scanners and acquisition protocols. DNNs are famously susceptible to these distribution shifts in computer vision. Currently, there are no benchmarking platforms or frameworks to assess the robustness of new and existing models to specific distribution shifts in MRI, and accessible multi-site benchmarking datasets are still scarce or task-specific. To address these limitations, we propose ROOD-MRI: a novel platform for benchmarking the Robustness of DNNs to Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) data, corruptions, and artifacts in MRI. This flexible platform provides modules for generating benchmarking datasets using transforms that model distribution shifts in MRI, implementations of newly derived benchmarking metrics for image segmentation, and examples for using the methodology with new models and tasks. We apply our methodology to hippocampus, ventricle, and white matter hyperintensity segmentation in several large studies, providing the hippocampus dataset as a publicly available benchmark. By evaluating modern DNNs on these datasets, we demonstrate that they are highly susceptible to distribution shifts and corruptions in MRI. We show that while data augmentation strategies can substantially improve robustness to OOD data for anatomical segmentation tasks, modern DNNs using augmentation still lack robustness in more challenging lesion-based segmentation tasks. We finally benchmark U-Nets and vision transformers, finding robustness susceptibility to particular classes of transforms across architectures. The presented open-source platform enables generating new benchmarking datasets and comparing across models to study model design that results in improved robustness to OOD data and corruptions in MRI.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".