Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper conducts a systematic audit of 27 colonoscopy polyp segmentation studies published between 2015 and 2026, revealing critical inconsistencies in evaluation metrics. The authors highlight the omission of the Hausdorff distance, the existence of incompatible train/test splits, and the lack of statistical significance testing in performance claims, which collectively undermine the validity of reported results. Their re-evaluation of five models under controlled protocols demonstrates that these issues lead to misleading conclusions about model performance, prompting the introduction of a Polyp Segmentation Reporting Checklist (PSRC) to enhance evaluation standards in the field.
Performance claims in colonoscopy polyp segmentation may be misleading, with a single metric shift altering the perceived best model.
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.
