2022 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) 2022
DOI: 10.1109/isbi52829.2022.9761638
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards Reducing Aleatoric Uncertainty for Medical Imaging Tasks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The AU does not decrease with increasing training data. It can be reduced by improving the data extraction process to decrease the inherent noise and clarify the features in the data [20], [21]. Hence, the effectiveness of the proposed technique in enhancing image data quality can be verified if the AU values from the MDS images generated utilizing the proposed technique are lower than those from the MDS images generated utilizing the conventional technique.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The AU does not decrease with increasing training data. It can be reduced by improving the data extraction process to decrease the inherent noise and clarify the features in the data [20], [21]. Hence, the effectiveness of the proposed technique in enhancing image data quality can be verified if the AU values from the MDS images generated utilizing the proposed technique are lower than those from the MDS images generated utilizing the conventional technique.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the vision community, aleatoric uncertainty is typically considered in the context of medical image processing, where model calibration is necessary to employ agents in high-stakes applications. A popular method of quantifying aleatoric uncertainty in medical imaging is data augmentation [5,62], but authors such as Beluch et al [9] and Reinhold et al [56] use alternate techniques such as ensembling and dropout network layers. Nado et al [47] produce a system for benchmarking such methods, but does not consider using human uncertainty scores to assess models.…”
Section: Assessing Human Uncertainty In Ambiguous Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our definition of ambiguity is also often confused or conflated with uncertainty. The literature mainly distinguishes between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty [33,163], while acknowledging that it is difficult to distinguish between them in DL [1,83,144,178]. Aleatoric uncertainty is a statistical uncertainty that is inherent in the data and cannot be influenced by the model.…”
Section: Aleatoric Uncertainty and Epistemtic Uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 99%