Back

Quality versus quantity of training datasets for artificial intelligence-based whole liver segmentation

Castelo, A.; O'Connor, C.; Gupta, A. C.; Anderson, B. M.; Woodland, M.; Altaie, M.; Koay, E. J.; Odisio, B. C.; Tang, T. T.; Brock, K. K.

2026-02-18 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.02.17.26346486 medRxiv
Show abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) based segmentation has many medical applications but limited curated datasets challenge model training; this study compares the impact of dataset annotation quality and quantity on whole liver AI segmentation performance. We obtained 3,089 abdominal computed tomography scans with whole-liver contours from MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA) and a MICCAI challenge. A total of 249 scans were withheld for testing of which 30, MICCAI challenge data, were reserved for external validation. The remaining scans were divided into mixed-curation and highly-curated groups, randomly sampled into sub-datasets of various sizes, and used to train 3D nnU-Net segmentation models. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC), surface DSC with 2mm margins (SD 2mm), the 95th percentile of Hausdorff distance (HD95), and 2D axial slice DSC (Slice DSC) were used to evaluate model performance. The highly curated, 244-scan model (DSC=0.971, SD 2mm=0.958, HD95=2.98mm) performed insignificantly different on 3D evaluation metrics to the mixed-curation 2,840-scan model (DSC=0.971 [p>.999], SD 2mm=0.958 [p>.999], HD95=2.87mm [p>.999]). The 710-scan mixed-curation (Slice DSC=0.929) significantly outperformed the highly curated, 244-scan model (Slice DSC=0.923 [p=0.012]) on the 30 external scans. Highly curated datasets yielded equivalent performance to datasets that were a full order of magnitude larger. The benefits of larger, mixed-curation datasets are evidenced in model generalizability metrics and local improvements. In conclusion, tradeoffs between dataset quality and quantity for model training are nuanced and goal dependent.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.