radioactive-eval
RadioActive: 3D Radiological Interactive Segmentation Benchmark — Ulrich et al. (2024) (arXiv:2411.07885, 2024)
What this evaluates
Evaluates interactive 3D medical image segmentation by measuring how well models segment target structures under varying human-in-the-loop prompting strategies (points, boxes, scribbles) and iterative refinement protocols. It specifically probes the trade-off between interaction effort and segmentation accuracy across 2D and 3D architectures.
Datasets
- RadioActive — total ?; splits: (unstated); repo https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/radioactive
Metrics
Dice(primary) — range: [0, 1]- Computes the overlap between the predicted segmentation mask and the ground truth mask, calculated as 2 * |A ∩ B| / (|A| + |B|). Reported as mean or average across cases/slices.
Input / output format
Input: 3D radiological volumes with interactive prompts provided as points, 2D/3D bounding boxes, or scribbles. Prompts are applied either slice-by-slice, per-volume, or via interpolation/propagation between initial prompts.
Output: 3D segmentation mask corresponding to the prompted target structure.
Scoring recipe
def dice_score(pred, gt):
intersection = np.logical_and(pred, gt).sum()
union = pred.sum() + gt.sum()
return 2.0 * intersection / union if union > 0 else 0.0
mean_dice = np.mean([dice_score(p, g) for p, g in zip(predictions, ground_truths)])
Common pitfalls
- Slice-by-slice prompting for 2D models is unrealistic and significantly inflates performance compared to human-in-the-loop scenarios.
- Propagation-based prompting can terminate early or cause severe oversegmentation if an initial prompt fails, unlike interpolation methods.
- Forgetting to re-provide initial prompts during iterative refinement steps leads to performance degradation.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
Figure 5 shows that models employing box prompts achieved significantly higher average Dice scores, with SAM2 demonstrating the strongest performance across all models. Conversely, point-based prompts performed poorly, particularly for small target regions, such as small MS lesions in dataset D1 (see [Tab. 2] in the appendix).
Citation
@misc{ulrich2024radioactive,
title={RadioActive: 3D Radiological Interactive Segmentation Benchmark},
author={Ulrich et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2411.07885}
}
- arXiv: 2411.07885