Evaluates interactive 3D medical image segmentation by measuring how well models segment target structures under varying human-in-the-loop prompting strategies (points, boxes, scribbles) and iterative refinement protocols. It specifically probes the trade-off between interaction effort and segmentation accuracy across 2D and 3D architectures. Use when the user wants to benchmark on RadioActive, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Dice.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill radioactive-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Radioactive Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-radioactive-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: radioactive-eval
description: Evaluates interactive 3D medical image segmentation by measuring how well models segment target structures under varying human-in-the-loop prompting strategies (points, boxes, scribbles) and iterative refinement protocols. It specifically probes the trade-off between interaction effort and segmentation accuracy across 2D and 3D architectures. Use when the user wants to benchmark on RadioActive, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Dice.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2411.07885
bibtex_key: ulrich2024radioactive
confidence: high
---
# radioactive-eval
> RadioActive: 3D Radiological Interactive Segmentation Benchmark — Ulrich et al. (2024) (arXiv:2411.07885, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates interactive 3D medical image segmentation by measuring how well models segment target structures under varying human-in-the-loop prompting strategies (points, boxes, scribbles) and iterative refinement protocols. It specifically probes the trade-off between interaction effort and segmentation accuracy across 2D and 3D architectures.
## Datasets
- **RadioActive** — total ?; splits: (unstated); repo https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/radioactive
## Metrics
- `Dice` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Computes the overlap between the predicted segmentation mask and the ground truth mask, calculated as 2 * |A ∩ B| / (|A| + |B|). Reported as mean or average across cases/slices.
## Input / output format
**Input**: 3D radiological volumes with interactive prompts provided as points, 2D/3D bounding boxes, or scribbles. Prompts are applied either slice-by-slice, per-volume, or via interpolation/propagation between initial prompts.
**Output**: 3D segmentation mask corresponding to the prompted target structure.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def dice_score(pred, gt):
intersection = np.logical_and(pred, gt).sum()
union = pred.sum() + gt.sum()
return 2.0 * intersection / union if union > 0 else 0.0
mean_dice = np.mean([dice_score(p, g) for p, g in zip(predictions, ground_truths)])
```
## Common pitfalls
- Slice-by-slice prompting for 2D models is unrealistic and significantly inflates performance compared to human-in-the-loop scenarios.
- Propagation-based prompting can terminate early or cause severe oversegmentation if an initial prompt fails, unlike interpolation methods.
- Forgetting to re-provide initial prompts during iterative refinement steps leads to performance degradation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Figure 5 shows that models employing box prompts achieved significantly higher average Dice scores, with SAM2 demonstrating the strongest performance across all models. Conversely, point-based prompts performed poorly, particularly for small target regions, such as small MS lesions in dataset D1 (see [Tab. 2] in the appendix).
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{ulrich2024radioactive,
title={RadioActive: 3D Radiological Interactive Segmentation Benchmark},
author={Ulrich et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2411.07885}
}
```
- arXiv: 2411.07885
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!