Confidence is Not Reliability: Rethinking MC Dropout in Brain Tumour Segmentation

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Glioma segmentation in multiparametric MRI is a critical component of treatment planning. A segmentation model that fails silently on treatment-critical sub-regions represents a patient safety risk that overlap-based metrics such as Dice scores cannot expose. We ask whether voxel-level uncertainty estimation via Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout can reliably identify segmentation errors in clinically critical sub-regions, and whether calibration failure modes are detectable from standard reporting metrics alone. In an empirical two-model case study on 126 BraTS21 patients, we evaluate a high-performance pretrained SegResNet and a locally trained UNet with residual units (UNet-Res). MC dropout preserved segmentation accuracy ($|Δ\text{Dice}|$ $<0.01$) while achieving strong uncertainty-error alignment (AUROC for entropy (H) $\approx$0.97), indicating uncertainty correctly ranks erroneous voxels above correct ones. Entropy-based patient stratification identified a high-uncertainty subgroup with substantially lower segmentation performance (median whole-tumour Dice $0.835$ vs. $0.925$), supporting uncertainty as a practical triage signal. However, global alignment can mask important region-specific differences. Despite similar AUROC, UNet-Res exhibited near-zero enhancing tumour entropy ($0.054$) and Expected Calibration Error (ECE) of $0.915$, with a Dice of only $0.714$, indicating severely miscalibrated confidence on the most clinically critical sub-region, a failure mode invisible to standard Dice and AUROC reporting. These findings demonstrate that strong uncertainty-error alignment is necessary but insufficient for clinical safety: sub-region-specific calibration assessment must accompany AUROC evaluation when selecting models for clinical deployment.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments