This benchmark evaluates unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) methods for 3D medical image segmentation across eight practical domain shifts, including inter-modality changes (MRI-CT), scanner parameters, contrast presence, and radiation dose. It measures how well models trained on a source domain can segment target domain volumes without target labels, highlighting the robustness of adaptation techniques to real-world imaging variability. Use when the user wants to benchmark on AMOS, LIDC, B...
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill m3da-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of M3da Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-m3da-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: m3da-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) methods for 3D medical image segmentation across eight practical domain shifts, including inter-modality changes (MRI-CT), scanner parameters, contrast presence, and radiation dose. It measures how well models trained on a source domain can segment target domain volumes without target labels, highlighting the robustness of adaptation techniques to real-world imaging variability. Use when the user wants to benchmark on AMOS, LIDC, BraTS, CC359, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports multiclass Dice score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2502.17029
bibtex_key: shirokikh2025m3da
confidence: high
---
# m3da-eval
> M3DA: Benchmark for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation in 3D Medical Image Segmentation — Boris Shirokikh et al. (arXiv:2502.17029, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) methods for 3D medical image segmentation across eight practical domain shifts, including inter-modality changes (MRI-CT), scanner parameters, contrast presence, and radiation dose. It measures how well models trained on a source domain can segment target domain volumes without target labels, highlighting the robustness of adaptation techniques to real-world imaging variability.
## Datasets
- **AMOS** — total ?; splits: (unstated)
- **LIDC** — total ?; splits: (unstated)
- **BraTS** — total ?; splits: (unstated)
- **CC359** — total ?; splits: (unstated)
## Metrics
- `multiclass Dice score` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Intersection over Union between predicted and ground truth segmentation masks, averaged across all foreground classes. The background label is explicitly excluded from quantification.
- `percentage of performance gap closed` — range: percent
- 100 * (Method_Dice - Baseline_Dice) / (Oracle_Dice - Baseline_Dice). Measures how much of the performance gap between a zero-shot baseline and an Oracle model (trained on target domain) is closed by the adaptation method.
## Input / output format
**Input**: 3D medical image volumes (CT, MRI, LDCT, etc.) from a source domain with corresponding segmentation masks for training; target domain volumes for evaluation.
**Output**: Multiclass segmentation masks (excluding background) for each target domain volume.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def dice_score(pred, gt):
intersection = np.sum(pred[gt == 1])
union = np.sum(pred) + np.sum(gt)
return 2 * intersection / union if union > 0 else 0.0
def compute_metrics(preds, gold, baseline_preds, oracle_preds):
dice = np.mean([dice_score(p, g) for p, g in zip(preds, gold)])
b_dice = np.mean([dice_score(p, g) for p, g in zip(baseline_preds, gold)])
o_dice = np.mean([dice_score(p, g) for p, g in zip(oracle_preds, gold)])
gap = 100 * (dice - b_dice) / (o_dice - b_dice) if (o_dice - b_dice) != 0 else 0.0
return dice, gap
```
## Common pitfalls
- The background label is explicitly excluded from the Dice score calculation; including it will artificially lower scores.
- The 'Oracle' setup refers to training and validating directly on the target domain, not a separate pre-trained model.
- Gap closed scores can be negative if an adaptation method performs worse than the zero-shot baseline.
- Results report case-wise standard deviations in parentheses, indicating multiple runs or cross-validation folds rather than a single deterministic evaluation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We evaluated various DA methods on the M3DA benchmark (Table 5) using multi-class Dice score and the percentage of performance gap closed between the Baseline and Oracle setups: $100 \times \frac{\text{Method}_{\text{Dice}} - \text{Baseline}_{\text{Dice}}}{\text{Oracle}_{\text{Dice}} - \text{Baseline}_{\text{Dice}}}$ .
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{shirokikh2025m3da,
title={M3DA: Benchmark for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation in 3D Medical Image Segmentation},
author={Boris Shirokikh et al.},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2502.17029}
}
```
- arXiv: 2502.17029
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!