Prompting with the human-touch: evaluating model-sensitivity of foundation models for musculoskeletal CT segmentation
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866911505754095616 |
|---|---|
| author | Magg, Caroline ter Wee, Maaike A. Dobbe, Johannes G. G. Streekstra, Geert J. Blankevoort, Leendert Sánchez, Clara I. Kervadec, Hoel |
| author_facet | Magg, Caroline ter Wee, Maaike A. Dobbe, Johannes G. G. Streekstra, Geert J. Blankevoort, Leendert Sánchez, Clara I. Kervadec, Hoel |
| contents | Promptable Foundation Models (FMs), initially introduced for natural image segmentation, have also revolutionized medical image segmentation. The increasing number of models, along with evaluations varying in datasets, metrics, and compared models, makes direct performance comparison between models difficult and complicates the selection of the most suitable model for specific clinical tasks. In our study, 11 promptable FMs are tested using non-iterative 2D and 3D prompting strategies on a private and public dataset focusing on bone and implant segmentation in four anatomical regions (wrist, shoulder, hip and lower leg). The Pareto-optimal models are identified and further analyzed using human prompts collected through a dedicated observer study. Our findings are: 1) The segmentation performance varies a lot between FMs and prompting strategies; 2) The Pareto-optimal models in 2D are SAM and SAM2.1, in 3D nnInteractive and Med-SAM2; 3) Localization accuracy and rater consistency vary with anatomical structures, with higher consistency for simple structures (wrist bones) and lower consistency for complex structures (pelvis, tibia, implants); 4) The segmentation performance drops using human prompts, suggesting that performance reported on "ideal" prompts extracted from reference labels might overestimate the performance in a human-driven setting; 5) All models were sensitive to prompt variations. While two models demonstrated intra-rater robustness, it did not scale to inter-rater settings. We conclude that the selection of the most optimal FM for a human-driven setting remains challenging, with even high-performing FMs being sensitive to variations in human input prompts. Our code base for prompt extraction and model inference is available: https://github.com/CarolineMagg/segmentation-FM-benchmark/ |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_10541 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Prompting with the human-touch: evaluating model-sensitivity of foundation models for musculoskeletal CT segmentation Magg, Caroline ter Wee, Maaike A. Dobbe, Johannes G. G. Streekstra, Geert J. Blankevoort, Leendert Sánchez, Clara I. Kervadec, Hoel Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Artificial Intelligence Promptable Foundation Models (FMs), initially introduced for natural image segmentation, have also revolutionized medical image segmentation. The increasing number of models, along with evaluations varying in datasets, metrics, and compared models, makes direct performance comparison between models difficult and complicates the selection of the most suitable model for specific clinical tasks. In our study, 11 promptable FMs are tested using non-iterative 2D and 3D prompting strategies on a private and public dataset focusing on bone and implant segmentation in four anatomical regions (wrist, shoulder, hip and lower leg). The Pareto-optimal models are identified and further analyzed using human prompts collected through a dedicated observer study. Our findings are: 1) The segmentation performance varies a lot between FMs and prompting strategies; 2) The Pareto-optimal models in 2D are SAM and SAM2.1, in 3D nnInteractive and Med-SAM2; 3) Localization accuracy and rater consistency vary with anatomical structures, with higher consistency for simple structures (wrist bones) and lower consistency for complex structures (pelvis, tibia, implants); 4) The segmentation performance drops using human prompts, suggesting that performance reported on "ideal" prompts extracted from reference labels might overestimate the performance in a human-driven setting; 5) All models were sensitive to prompt variations. While two models demonstrated intra-rater robustness, it did not scale to inter-rater settings. We conclude that the selection of the most optimal FM for a human-driven setting remains challenging, with even high-performing FMs being sensitive to variations in human input prompts. Our code base for prompt extraction and model inference is available: https://github.com/CarolineMagg/segmentation-FM-benchmark/ |
| title | Prompting with the human-touch: evaluating model-sensitivity of foundation models for musculoskeletal CT segmentation |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10541 |