Prompting with the human-touch: evaluating model-sensitivity of foundation models for musculoskeletal CT segmentation

Caroline Magg, Maaike A. ter Wee, Johannes G. G. Dobbe, Geert J. Streekstra, Leendert Blankevoort, Clara I. Sánchez, Hoel Kervadec · Mar 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

Promptable Foundation Models (FMs), initially introduced for natural image segmentation, have also revolutionized medical image segmentation. The increasing number of models, along with evaluations varying in datasets, metrics, and compared models, makes direct performance comparison between models difficult and complicates the selection of the most suitable model for specific clinical tasks. In our study, 11 promptable FMs are tested using non-iterative 2D and 3D prompting strategies on a private and public dataset focusing on bone and implant segmentation in four anatomical regions (wrist, shoulder, hip and lower leg). The Pareto-optimal models are identified and further analyzed using human prompts collected through a dedicated observer study. Our findings are: 1) The segmentation performance varies a lot between FMs and prompting strategies; 2) The Pareto-optimal models in 2D are SAM and SAM2.1, in 3D nnInteractive and Med-SAM2; 3) Localization accuracy and rater consistency vary with anatomical structures, with higher consistency for simple structures (wrist bones) and lower consistency for complex structures (pelvis, tibia, implants); 4) The segmentation performance drops using human prompts, suggesting that performance reported on "ideal" prompts extracted from reference labels might overestimate the performance in a human-driven setting; 5) All models were sensitive to prompt variations. While two models demonstrated intra-rater robustness, it did not scale to inter-rater settings. We conclude that the selection of the most optimal FM for a human-driven setting remains challenging, with even high-performing FMs being sensitive to variations in human input prompts. Our code base for prompt extraction and model inference is available: https://github.com/CarolineMagg/segmentation-FM-benchmark/

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.