
The comprehensive integration of machine learning healthcare models within clinical practice remains suboptimal, notwithstanding the proliferation of high-performing solutions reported in the literature. A predominant factor hindering widespread adoption pertains to an insufficiency of evidence affirming the reliability of the aforementioned models. Recently, uncertainty quantification methods have been proposed as a potential solution to quantify the reliability of machine learning models and thus increase the interpretability and acceptability of the result. In this review, we offer a comprehensive overview of prevailing methods proposed to quantify uncertainty inherent in machine learning models developed for various medical image tasks. Contrary to earlier reviews that exclusively focused on probabilistic methods, this review also explores non-probabilistic approaches, thereby furnishing a more holistic survey of research pertaining to uncertainty quantification for machine learning models. Analysis of medical images with the summary and discussion on medical applications and the corresponding uncertainty evaluation protocols are presented, which focus on the specific challenges of uncertainty in medical image analysis. We also highlight some potential future research work at the end. Generally, this review aims to allow researchers from both clinical and technical backgrounds to gain a quick and yet in-depth understanding of the research in uncertainty quantification for medical image analysis machine learning models.
arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2210.03736 by other authors
Diagnostic Imaging, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Epistemic uncertainty, Aleatory uncertainty, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV), Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 610, Uncertainty evaluation, Machine Learning, Computer-Assisted, [INFO.INFO-TS]Computer Science [cs]/Signal and Image Processing, Medical image analysis, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, FOS: Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, Humans, Uncertainty quantification, MESH: Humans, MESH: Machine Learning, MESH: Diagnostic Imaging, Image and Video Processing (eess.IV), Uncertainty, Probabilistic methods, Reproducibility of Results, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science - Image and Video Processing, MESH: Reproducibility of Results, MESH: Image Processing, Non-probabilistic methods, MESH: Uncertainty
Diagnostic Imaging, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Epistemic uncertainty, Aleatory uncertainty, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV), Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 610, Uncertainty evaluation, Machine Learning, Computer-Assisted, [INFO.INFO-TS]Computer Science [cs]/Signal and Image Processing, Medical image analysis, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, FOS: Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, Humans, Uncertainty quantification, MESH: Humans, MESH: Machine Learning, MESH: Diagnostic Imaging, Image and Video Processing (eess.IV), Uncertainty, Probabilistic methods, Reproducibility of Results, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science - Image and Video Processing, MESH: Reproducibility of Results, MESH: Image Processing, Non-probabilistic methods, MESH: Uncertainty
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 56 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
