Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Boundary delineation of anatomical structures in prostate MRI is often compromised by regional ambiguity. Automated segmentation methods relying on global overlap loss functions tend to be insensitive to surface deviations, leading to significant errors in ambiguous regions. Most existing uncertainty-aware methods treat uncertainty as a post-hoc quality indicator or prediction filter. We propose Contrastive Uncertainty Learning (CUL), a supervised framework that uses predictive uncertainty to directly guide representation learning. Using Monte Carlo Dropout, CUL identifies voxel-wise uncertainty and structures the embedding geometry accordingly: low-uncertainty, correctly predicted features form stable voxels while high-uncertainty or misclassified features are actively repelled, preventing feature collapse at difficult boundaries. We evaluate CUL on a 589-scan 3D prostate MRI multi-structure segmentation task (8 anatomical structures) using a ViT with UperNet decoder architecture. Average Dice ($83.38\%$) remains comparable to the baseline ($83.35\%$), while surface distance decreases significantly ($p<0.001$) across 6 of 8 anatomical structures. A hard-case analysis reveals a $22{\times}$ asymmetry between significantly improved and degraded cases ($18.8\%$ vs $0.9\%$). Ablation studies show that removing uncertainty-guided sample selection eliminates improvements for the transition zone, while replacing the contrastive objective with a boundary loss additionally removes bladder improvements, demonstrating that both uncertainty-guided sampling and the contrastive objective are essential for the observed gains. These findings demonstrate that the proposed uncertainty-guided representation learning is a useful mechanism for reducing the risk of extreme errors in safety-critical medical segmentation