Abstract
Deep learning segmentation models are often evaluated using geometric metrics such as Dice, HD95, and ASD, yet it remains unclear to what extent improvements in these metrics translate into clinically meaningful changes in downstream decision-making. The metric-to-decision gap is examined using radiological Peritoneal Cancer Index (rPCI) region segmentation on contrast-enhanced CT, where a consensus definition provides anatomically grounded 3D regions and the clinically used PCI 20 threshold enables decision-level evaluation. Inter-observer variability is quantified across four experts on ten abdominal CT scans, and a published nnU-Net based rPCI segmentation model is benchmarked against this human reference using Dice, HD95, and ASD across all 13 regions. To relate geometric differences to clinical impact, a probabilistic peritoneal metastasis simulation is implemented on majority-vote rPCI maps, propagating region-boundary variability into variability of derived (r)PCI scores and classification at the PCI 20 cutoff. Observers showed high agreement (mean Dice $0.87$), while the model matched human performance in most regions but deviated more in regions 4, 8, and the small-bowel regions (9-12). Across simulations, score differences were typically small (mean $\Delta$rPCI $\approx 0.3$-$0.6$) for both observers and the model, and decision flips occurred predominantly when the reference score was near 20. These results suggest that rPCI-derived scoring is generally robust to typical segmentation variability, while highlighting borderline cases as the main setting where expert review remains essential.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28716
