Skip to main content

Uncertainty quantification for detecting out-of-distribution cases in deep learning segmentation of head and neck organs of interest

Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (Q1)
Published
13 October 2026
Study design
Unclassified
Evidence level
Level 5, Expert Opinion (CEBM 5)
Authors
Joëlle E van Aalst, Rita Simões, Federica C Maruccio, Daniel C MacRae, Luuk van der Hoek, Johannes A Langendijk, et al.
PMID
42869247
DOI
10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111826

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Medical Physics (top studies of the week, 18 October 2026): Uncertainty quantification to detect OOD in auto‑segmentation

Abstract

PURPOSE: Quality assurance (QA) of auto-segmentations is necessary for safe clinical deployment. Deep learning models are optimised for data similar to their training set, but reliability drops with out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. This study evaluates whether uncertainty quantification (UQ) can detect OOD inputs arising from distribution shift in head and neck organ of interest (OOI) auto-segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monte Carlo dropout-based uncertainty scores and geometric accuracy of nnU-Net models were evaluated in two experiments. First, as a proof-of-concept, we assessed whether uncertainty scores detect metal artefact (N = 10) from non-artefact cases (N = 10) on a baseline model (mixed training data, N = 620) and a no-metal model (artefact-free training data, N = 620). Second, in a clinically realistic experiment, we split a fine-tuning dataset by uncertainty score to obtain a narrow model (low-uncertainty cases, N = 21) and a broad model (high-uncertainty cases, N = 21). A held-out test set (N = 76) evaluated whether segmentation accuracy differed between uncertainty categories. RESULTS: Both experiments showed that uncertainty scores reflect the learned training distribution. In the supervised experiment, the no-metal model demonstrated greater uncertainty score separation between artefact and non-artefact cases (1.1 × 105 vs 0.6 × 105) than the baseline model (1.1 × 105 vs 0.8 × 105). In the unsupervised experiment, the narrow model performed significantly better on certain than uncertain cases (p = 0.04), while no difference was seen for the broad model (p = 0.34), which did include these cases in training. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty quantification can detect distribution shifts in radiotherapy auto-segmentation. This could support automated QA workflows by identifying in-distribution cases and enabling the application of specialised models.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.