SC-MFJ: A Simple Haptic Quality Metric for Medical Image Segmentation

Progress in colonoscopy polyp segmentation is routinely reported through leaderboard comparisons on a small set of public benchmarks. We argue that this apparent progress is difficult to verify: a systematic audit of \textbf{27 papers} published between 2015 and 2026 reveals three structural problems in how the community evaluates models. \textbf{First}, 25 of 27 papers \textit{omit the Hausdorff distance}. Hausdorff distance is a boundary-accuracy metric with direct clinical relevance for detecting flat or small polyps, and is a standard in radiotherapy segmentation. \textbf{Second}, at least five \textit{incompatible train/test split protocols} co-exist across papers reporting results on the same two datasets (Kvasir-SEG and CVC-ClinicDB), making published Dice scores non-comparable even when they appear in the same leaderboard column. \textbf{Third}, 26 of 27 papers make \textit{performance claims without any statistical significance test}. Strikingly, four papers published \emph{after} the Metrics Reloaded framework~\cite{metricsreloaded2024} (Maier-Hein et al., \textit{Nature Methods} 2024) perpetuate these same problems, suggesting that general-purpose metric guidance has not yet reached the colonoscopy sub-community. To show these problems are not merely cosmetic, we re-evaluate five representative models under three controlled protocols with a single uniform scorer, and find that the reported metric conceals large boundary and recall failures, that the ``best'' model changes with the metric, and that near-tied rankings reverse across random splits. We propose a five-point \textbf{Polyp Segmentation Reporting Checklist}~(PSRC) as a lightweight, domain-adapted corrective.

Evaluation metrics are central to binary target segmentation because they determine how progress is measured, compared, and interpreted. In this paper, target denotes the task-defined positive region to be segmented rather than a generic foreground object. It may be salient, camouflaged, transparent, glass-like, mirror-like, shadow-like, lesion-like, or defined by other application-specific semantics. We treat existing metrics as compositions of modular design choices rather than isolated formulas. The proposed framework decomposes each metric into five stages covering prediction representation, target extraction, target matching, score computation, and metric reporting. We use this framework to analyze representative metrics and show how newer metrics address specific limits in earlier protocols. The stage choices keep each metric's assumptions visible. We then discuss the design space opened by the framework and its implications for task-aware evaluation protocols. Reference code is available at https://github.com/lartpang/PySODMetrics.

Synthetic histopathology image generation has emerged as an approach that may address data scarcity in computational pathology, yet current evaluation methodologies may not fully assess synthetic data quality for medical applications. This work investigates and addresses limitations in existing evaluation metrics, investigating an approach for assessing synthetic histopathology image quality through domain-specific metrics and downstream task validation. We show that conventional synthetic data evaluation metrics such as Frechet Inception Distance (FID) and Inception Score (IS) may have limitations when applied to histopathology images due to their reliance on ImageNet-pretrained feature extractors. To address these limitations, we propose for consideration modified FID and IS approaches utilizing foundation models pretrained on digital pathology datasets, supplemented by precision-recall based metrics as part of an additional quality assessment. Using conditional denoising diffusion models trained on four benchmark datasets, with a two-step training approach, we generated synthetic datasets with systematically varied quality characteristics. We also measured the correlation between the synthetic data quality metrics with downstream nuclei segmentation performance using common metrics including the aggregated Jaccard index (AJI+) and the Dice coefficient. The study results suggest that pathology-specific metrics may provide improved discriminative power. Specifically, the modified Inception Score indicates higher correlation with downstream task performance (r=0.6096 with AJI+, p=0.0122), compared to the original IS (r=0.0708, p=0.7944). Our observations indicate that increasing the variety of generated training data has a higher positive correlation with segmentation model performance than improving the visual fidelity of individual generated images.