Beyond Boundary Noise: Aggregated Aleatoric Uncertainty Fails to Capture Presence Ambiguity in 3D Lung Nodule Segmentation

Uncertainty estimation is critical for the safe clinical deployment of deep learning in medical image segmentation, with aleatoric uncertainty theoretically designed to capture irreducible data ambiguity. However, whether entropy-based measures reflect clinically meaningful ambiguity, i.e. case-level disagreement about whether a pathology is present at all, remains poorly understood. Contrary to most prior work, which focused on pixel-wise boundary disagreement, we systematically evaluate how well aleatoric uncertainty captures presence ambiguity. Our evaluation spans 3D lung nodule segmentation across four architectures with Monte Carlo dropout and deep ensembles, on LIDC-IDRI and an external validation cohort (LNDb). We find that entropy-based uncertainty maps align with boundary noise and minor drawing variation but carry insufficient discriminative signal for presence ambiguity. In contrast, a lightweight supervised ambiguity head trained on frozen segmentation features substantially outperforms all entropy-aggregation-based baselines across architectures, metrics, and both cohorts, and matches or exceeds methods that explicitly model ambiguity under disagreement supervision (Probabilistic U-Net, Annotator-Confusion 3D-UNet). A qualitative feature-space analysis shows that presence ambiguity is already encoded in the frozen encoder features of pixel-wise-trained networks, only to be discarded by the segmentation output and its entropy aggregation. Our findings expose a fundamental mismatch between the theoretical promise of aleatoric uncertainty and its practical behavior, and suggest that practitioners should not rely on entropy-based uncertainty as a proxy for clinical ambiguity in safety-critical applications.

Distilling CT Foundation Models into Editable Concept Bottlenecks for Lung Nodule Malignancy Prediction

Foundation models provide transferable CT representations, but predictions based directly on these embeddings are difficult to interpret. We developed concept bottleneck models that map two frozen CT foundation-model representations to eight radiologist-defined pulmonary-nodule attributes and predict malignancy from the estimated concepts and nodule size. The models included CT-FM, a whole-CT self-supervised encoder using a 96^3-voxel nodule-centered patch, and FMCIB, a nodule-focused contrastive encoder using a 50-mm crop. Eight ridge-regression concept heads were trained on 2,610 LIDC-IDRI nodules. Malignancy models were trained on LUNA25 and evaluated on a held-out internal test set and the external DLCS cohort. Concept fidelity was assessed using five-fold cross-validated R^2, and malignancy discrimination was assessed using AUROC with 95% confidence intervals estimated by patient-grouped bootstrap resampling. Concept fidelity was modest but higher for FMCIB than CT-FM for subtlety (R2, 0.24 vs. 0.11), spiculation (0.17 vs. 0.08), texture (0.17 vs. 0.07), and lobulation (0.15 vs. 0.05). Internally, the CT-FM and FMCIB concept+size models achieved AUROCs of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) and 0.86 (0.79-0.92), respectively. Externally, AUROCs were 0.72 (0.68-0.75) and 0.73 (0.70-0.76), compared with 0.73 for nodule size alone and 0.60 and 0.67 for the corresponding embedding only probes. Additive predictions could be decomposed into feature-level contributions and modified through controlled concept interventions. Concept bottlenecks provided transparent malignancy predictions with discrimination similar to nodule size alone, while differences in concept fidelity suggest that concept recovery depends on the underlying foundation-model representation.