Empirical validation of Conformal Prediction for trustworthy skin lesions classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Uncertainty quantification is a pivotal field that contributes to realizing reliable and robust systems. It becomes instrumental in fortifying safe decisions by providing complementary information, particularly within high-risk applications. existing studies have explored various methods that often operate under specific assumptions or necessitate substantial modifications to the network architecture to effectively account for uncertainties. The objective of this paper is to study Conformal Prediction, an emerging distribution-free uncertainty quantification technique, and provide a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations inherent in various methods within the medical imaging field. METHODS: In this study, we developed Conformal Prediction, Monte Carlo Dropout, and Evidential Deep Learning approaches to assess uncertainty quantification in deep neural networks. The effectiveness of these methods is evaluated using three public medical imaging datasets focused on detecting pigmented skin lesions and blood cell types. RESULTS: The experimental results demonstrate a significant enhancement in uncertainty quantification with the utilization of the Conformal Prediction method, surpassing the performance of the other two methods. Furthermore, the results present insights into the effectiveness of each uncertainty method in handling Out-of-Distribution samples from domain-shifted datasets. Our code is available at: github.com/jfayyad/ConformalDx. CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusion highlights a robust and consistent performance of conformal prediction across diverse testing conditions. This positions it as the preferred choice for decision-making in safety-critical applications.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".