Confidence Matters: Uncertainty Quantification and Precision Assessment of Deep Learning-based CMR Biomarker Estimates Using Scan-rescan Data

arXiv cs.CV / 3/31/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The study argues that deep learning performance for cine CMR biomarker estimation is often judged by accuracy or point estimates while precision (scan–rescan agreement) is overlooked.
  • It applies uncertainty quantification methods—deep ensembles, test-time augmentation, and Monte Carlo dropout—to a state-of-the-art cardiac functional biomarker DL pipeline.
  • Using scan-rescan CMR data, the model shows high point-estimate performance (e.g., average Dice of 87% on external validation sets), but uncertainty-based distribution metrics reveal weak confidence-interval overlap in many cases.
  • Proposed distribution-based precision metrics and statistical similarity tests indicate significant scan/rescan differences in a majority of cases, suggesting that point-metric confidence can be misleading.
  • The authors conclude that distributional and uncertainty-aware evaluations are necessary to more reliably assess precision and agreement between scans over time.

Abstract

The performance of deep learning (DL) methods for the analysis of cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is typically assessed in terms of accuracy, overlooking precision. In this work, uncertainty estimation techniques, namely deep ensemble, test-time augmentation, and Monte Carlo dropout, are applied to a state-of-the-art DL pipeline for cardiac functional biomarker estimation, and new distribution-based metrics are proposed for the assessment of biomarker precision. The model achieved high accuracy (average Dice 87%) and point estimate precision on two external validation scan-rescan CMR datasets. However, distribution-based metrics showed that the overlap between scan/rescan confidence intervals was >50% in less than 45% of the cases. Statistical similarity tests between scan and rescan biomarkers also resulted in significant differences for over 65% of the cases. We conclude that, while point estimate metrics might suggest good performance, distributional analyses reveal lower precision, highlighting the need to use more representative metrics to assess scan-rescan agreement.