Paper detail

A Comparative Study of Confidence Calibration in Deep Learning: From Computer Vision to Medical Imaging

Although deep learning prediction models have been successful in the discrimination of different classes, they can often suffer from poor calibration across challenging domains including healthcare. Moreover, the long-tail distribution poses great challenges in deep learning classification problems including clinical disease prediction. There are approaches proposed recently to calibrate deep prediction in computer vision, but there are no studies found to demonstrate how the representative models work in different challenging contexts. In this paper, we bridge the confidence calibration from computer vision to medical imaging with a comparative study of four high-impact calibration models. Our studies are conducted in different contexts (natural image classification and lung cancer risk estimation) including in balanced vs. imbalanced training sets and in computer vision vs. medical imaging. Our results support key findings: (1) We achieve new conclusions which are not studied under different learning contexts, e.g., combining two calibration models that both mitigate the overconfident prediction can lead to under-confident prediction, and simpler calibration models from the computer vision domain tend to be more generalizable to medical imaging. (2) We highlight the gap between general computer vision tasks and medical imaging prediction, e.g., calibration methods ideal for general computer vision tasks may in fact damage the calibration of medical imaging prediction. (3) We also reinforce previous conclusions in natural image classification settings. We believe that this study has merits to guide readers to choose calibration models and understand gaps between general computer vision and medical imaging domains.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.