Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

ConDSeg: A General Medical Image Segmentation Framework via Contrast-Driven Feature Enhancement

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ConDSeg claims that a single framework, built on contrast-driven feature enhancement and size-aware decoding, outperforms every compared method on five medical image segmentation datasets.

desk verdict A competent, well-ablated segmentation framework whose 'SOTA on all five datasets' claim is undercut by a missing EPPS baseline and the absence of any error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08345 v1 pith:4HLFHTS5 submitted 2024-12-11 eess.IV cs.CV

Mengqi Lei , Haochen Wu , Xinhua Lv , Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords medicalimagesegmentationcontrastivelearningfeaturedecouplingco-occurrencesize-awaredecoderpolypskinlesiongland
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the two recurring failure modes of medical image segmentation—soft, low-contrast boundaries and misleading co-occurrence patterns (statistical associations such as 'polyps often appear in multiples,' which fool the model when an entity appears alone)—can be handled by one general framework rather than by task-specific architectures. ConDSeg trains its encoder first to predict the same mask from an image and from a strongly perturbed copy of it, then decouples the deepest features into foreground, background, and uncertainty maps, using the first two as contrastive guides for multi-level feature fusion. A Size-Aware Decoder splits the final prediction among small, medium, and large branches, on the premise that shallow features carry the detail needed for small entities and deep features the semantics needed for large ones. On five public datasets spanning endoscopy, histology, and dermoscopy, the authors report that ConDSeg beats every compared method in mean IoU and mean Dice. If the claim holds, the practical payoff is a single training recipe that lifts segmentation accuracy across modalities while also reducing the model's tendency to hallucinate co-occurring objects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-stage pipeline made of four named components. Consistency Reinforcement (CR) isolates the ResNet-50 encoder with a simple prediction head and trains it so that the predicted mask from an original image matches the predicted mask from a strongly augmented copy (brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, grayscale, Gaussian blur); the matching loss alternately binarizes one prediction and applies binary cross-entropy to the other, which the paper argues is simpler and numerically stabler than KL or JS divergence. Semantic Information Decoupling (SID) splits the deepest feature map into foreground, background, and uncertainty channels, and penalizes both per-channel errors and pairwise overlap, so the uncertainty channel shrinks as training proceeds. Contrast-Driven Feature Aggregation (CDFA) uses the foreground and background maps to compute two softmax attention matrices over a $3\times 3$ window and applies them to the fused feature values, making foreground/background contrast the guide for multi-level feature fusion. The Size-Aware Decoder (SA-Decoder) runs three parallel decoders—small, medium, and large—that receive features from adjacent CDFA outputs, then fuses their predictions, on the premise that shallow levels should handle small entities and deep levels large ones.

What would settle it

Swap the feature-level inputs among the small, medium, and large decoders and retrain: if the size-specialization story is doing the work, performance should drop, while if mean IoU and mean Dice stay roughly the same, the Size-Aware Decoder's stated mechanism is not the source of the gains. A complementary check is to count, per ground-truth object size, which decoder's output dominates the final mask.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ConDSeg's central claim is that the same mechanisms can solve both ambiguous-boundary and co-occurrence problems, and that this generality pays off empirically: the authors report the best mean IoU and mean Dice on Kvasir-SEG, Kvasir-Sessile, GlaS, ISIC-2016, and ISIC-2017. The decisive design step is to make foreground-versus-background contrast an explicit feature, not just a training signal: the Semantic Information Decoupling module converts the encoder's deepest map into separate foreground, background, and uncertainty channels, and the Contrast-Driven Feature Aggregation module turns those channels into attention weights that steer multi-level feature fusion. The Consistency Reinforcement stage hardens the encoder against illumination and contrast shifts before the full network is fine-tuned. The Size-Aware Decoder then assigns small, medium, and large objects to separate branches fed by different feature levels, which the paper argues prevents the network from learning spurious size correlations such as one polyp implying another nearby. Together these components are claimed to produce a network that segments accurately even when an entity appears alone or under poor imaging conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that shallow feature maps suit small entities and deeper maps suit large ones: the three decoders are assigned those roles by feature level alone, with no size labels, object grouping, or per-size supervision to confirm the mapping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ConDSeg's reported numbers are correct, a single architecture can replace method families specialized to polyp, gland, and skin-lesion segmentation, because the contrast, uncertainty, and size mechanisms are not modality-specific.
  • The Consistency Reinforcement stage offers a cheap robustness gain: it trains only the encoder with a simple head, and the ablations show that the two-stage scheme plus CR beats one-stage training of the full network.
  • Because the Size-Aware Decoder deliberately keeps small and large entities in separate branches, models trained under co-occurrence-heavy distributions should generalize better to single-occurrence cases, the failure mode visualized with TGANet.
  • At roughly 59.6 frames per second on an RTX 4090, the complete ConDSeg pipeline is fast enough for real-time use, so the accuracy gains would not come at the cost of deployability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves untested whether the shallow-to-large mapping in the Size-Aware Decoder actually holds: a probe that records which decoder fires on ground-truth objects of each size would show whether size specialization is real or merely an implicit bias.
  • Because CDFA uses foreground and background maps as attention generators rather than as extra fused features, it could be inserted into other encoder-decoder backbones as a contrastive fusion layer; the paper does not report such transfer experiments.
  • The complementarity loss that drives the uncertainty channel toward zero resembles a general strategy for ambiguous-boundary labeling, so one could test it on pseudo-label refinement or open-set segmentation where an explicit unknown region is useful.
  • The threshold used in the consistency loss is fixed at 0.5, and the supplementary sweep shows sensitivity near the extremes, so a learned or per-dataset threshold might push the reported numbers further, though the paper does not explore this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ConDSeg, a two-stage medical image segmentation framework. In the first stage, a Consistency Reinforcement (CR) strategy trains the encoder on original and strongly augmented images with a consistency loss. In the second stage, a Semantic Information Decoupling (SID) module splits encoder features into foreground, background, and uncertainty maps; a Contrast-Driven Feature Aggregation (CDFA) module uses the foreground and background maps to guide multi-level feature fusion; and a Size-Aware Decoder (SA-Decoder) assigns small, medium, and large objects to three decoders at different feature levels. The authors report state-of-the-art mIoU, mDSC, Recall, and Precision on Kvasir-SEG, Kvasir-Sessile, GlaS, ISIC-2016, and ISIC-2017, with ablations, convergence curves, and supplementary analyses of thresholds, window sizes, inference speed, backbone choices, and a Synapse multi-class extension.

Significance. If the empirical claim is substantiated, ConDSeg would be a broadly applicable, real-time-capable segmentation framework with a released implementation and a generally sound ablation design. The supplementary sensitivity analyses for threshold t, window size K, stage-1 epochs, and encoder choice are useful, and the inference speed measurement is a practical strength. The main significance, however, is incremental: the novelty lies in combining known ideas (contrastive consistency, decoupling, multi-scale decoders) rather than in a new theoretical principle. The headline 'best on all five datasets' is currently under-supported because the comparison omits the authors' own closest predecessor and no statistical significance is reported, and the co-occurrence mechanism is validated only by a single Grad-CAM example.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experiments, Comparison with Other State-of-the-Art] Tables 1 and 2 omit EPPS (Lei and Wang 2024), which the paper itself cites as a method that combines edge information with selective feature decoupling and is the closest conceptual predecessor of ConDSeg's SID module. Since the authors explicitly claim 'on all five datasets, our method achieves the best segmentation performance,' the comparison set must include this method. If EPPS matches or exceeds ConDSeg on Kvasir-SEG or Kvasir-Sessile, the headline claim is false; the manuscript should report those numbers and discuss the difference.
  2. [Experiments, Comparison with Other State-of-the-Art] All results in Tables 1 and 2 are single values with no error bars, no multiple seeds, and no significance tests. The claimed advantages over the runner-up are as small as 0.5 mIoU on Kvasir-SEG (DTAN: 84.1 vs. 84.6) and 1.3 mIoU on ISIC-2016 (EIU-Net: 85.5 vs. 86.8), which is within typical run-to-run variability for deep segmentation models. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three independent runs or perform paired significance tests before the 'best' claim can be accepted.
  3. [Methodology, Size-Aware Decoder; Overcoming Co-occurrence] The claim that the Size-Aware Decoder 'avoids erroneous learning of co-occurrence features' rests on the premise that shallow feature maps are suitable for small entities and deep maps for large entities. However, the three decoders are assigned small, medium, and large roles purely by feature level, with no size labels, per-size supervision, or object grouping. The only direct evidence for the co-occurrence benefit is a single Grad-CAM example (Figure 3). To support the mechanism, the authors should quantify false-positive predictions on images containing a single polyp (e.g., precision on a single-occurrence subset) and show that SA-Decoder specifically reduces such errors, rather than only improving aggregate IoU.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methodology, Semantic Information Decoupling] The section heading 'Semantic Imformation Decoupling' contains a typo and should read 'Information'.
  2. [Methodology, Semantic Information Decoupling] In the text describing the auxiliary head, 'regions of uncertainty (M_fg)' should be 'M_uc'; the current text uses the same symbol as the foreground mask, which is confusing.
  3. [Ablation Study, Proposed Modules] The ablation section says 'we set up 3 groups of ablation experiments on the GlaS dataset' but then lists 'Our 4 experiment setups are: 1) Baseline. 2)... 3)...' The count is inconsistent and should be corrected.
  4. [References] The reference Xi et al. 2024, 'Evaluating travel behavior resilience across urban and rural areas during the COVID-19 pandemic,' appears unrelated to medical image segmentation and should be replaced with a relevant citation or removed.
  5. [Ablation Study, Training Strategy] In Table 3, the checkmark column header row is ambiguous about which columns correspond to 'Net0', 'CR', and 'Stage 2'; please label the columns explicitly so the five configurations are easy to interpret.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'It accurately locate entities' should be 'It accurately locates entities.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ConDSeg's components are direct optimization objectives and the SOTA claim is an external benchmark comparison.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation step whose output is equivalent to its input. Each proposed component is stated as a direct training objective: CR's robustness is enforced by Lcons (Eq. 6) between original and augmented predictions, SID's uncertainty reduction is enforced by β1Lfg, β2Lbg and Lcompl (Eqs. 9-10 and 15), and the final mask is produced by standard BCE/Dice supervision. These are optimization targets, not post-hoc predictions fitted to the same target. The central claim of best segmentation performance on five datasets is assessed against external baselines (Tables 1-2) and is therefore independent of any self-citation; the only self-citation (Lei and Wang 2024, EPPS, used for the general "soft boundary" observation) is not load-bearing. The absence of EPPS from the comparison tables and the lack of error bars are legitimate completeness and statistical concerns, but they are correctness risks rather than circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework's empirical gains depend on hand-chosen hyperparameters and on modeling assumptions about consistency, uncertainty, and size. No new physical entities are postulated; the only invented construct is the uncertainty region, which has no independent evidence outside the network's own loss.

free parameters (4)
  • Consistency threshold t = 0.5
    Used in the L_cons binarization and at inference. Evaluated on ISIC-2016 in Supplementary Figure 6, where the best performance is near t=0.5.
  • CDFA window size K = 3
    Tuned on Kvasir-Sessile in Supplementary Table 7, where K=3 outperforms K=1, K=5, and K=7.
  • Stage 1 training epochs = 100
    Tuned on Kvasir-SEG in Supplementary Table 6; performance saturates between 50 and 100 epochs.
  • Learning rate schedule = 1e-4 Stage 1; 1e-5 encoder and 1e-4 rest in Stage 2
    Hand-chosen in the Experimental Setup; no sensitivity study is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption For every pixel, the foreground, background, and uncertainty masks sum to 1 and are binary at the optimum.
    Encoded in Eq. 8 and enforced as an optimization target by L_compl; the paper assumes this decomposition is meaningful and stable.
  • domain assumption Strong augmentation (brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, grayscale, blur) preserves the ground truth mask.
    This is the consistency premise of the CR strategy in the Consistency Reinforcement section; it fails if augmentation changes the semantic target.
  • ad hoc to paper Shallow feature maps are appropriate for small entities and deep feature maps for large entities.
    Stated in the Size-Aware Decoder section; no size labels or object-level supervision enforce this mapping.
  • domain assumption Published baseline metrics on the five datasets are comparable because the same official or widely used splits are used.
    Cross-paper comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 rely on this; the paper does not rerun all baselines under one protocol.
invented entities (1)
  • Uncertainty feature map f_uc and uncertainty mask M_uc
    purpose: Represents pixels that are neither confidently foreground nor background; trained to shrink via complementarity loss.
    The uncertainty region is an internal latent construct with no external falsifiable handle. Its reduction is enforced by Eq. 10, so observing reduced uncertainty is partly observing the optimization objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ConDSeg: A General Medical Image Segmentation Framework via Contrast-Driven Feature Enhancement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HLFHTS5

@misc{pith2026241208345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ConDSeg: A General Medical Image Segmentation Framework via Contrast-Driven Feature Enhancement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HLFHTS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08345}
}
read the original abstract

Medical image segmentation plays an important role in clinical decision making, treatment planning, and disease tracking. However, it still faces two major challenges. On the one hand, there is often a ``soft boundary'' between foreground and background in medical images, with poor illumination and low contrast further reducing the distinguishability of foreground and background within the image. On the other hand, co-occurrence phenomena are widespread in medical images, and learning these features is misleading to the model's judgment. To address these challenges, we propose a general framework called Contrast-Driven Medical Image Segmentation (ConDSeg). First, we develop a contrastive training strategy called Consistency Reinforcement. It is designed to improve the encoder's robustness in various illumination and contrast scenarios, enabling the model to extract high-quality features even in adverse environments. Second, we introduce a Semantic Information Decoupling module, which is able to decouple features from the encoder into foreground, background, and uncertainty regions, gradually acquiring the ability to reduce uncertainty during training. The Contrast-Driven Feature Aggregation module then contrasts the foreground and background features to guide multi-level feature fusion and key feature enhancement, further distinguishing the entities to be segmented. We also propose a Size-Aware Decoder to solve the scale singularity of the decoder. It accurately locate entities of different sizes in the image, thus avoiding erroneous learning of co-occurrence features. Extensive experiments on five medical image datasets across three scenarios demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of our method, proving its advanced nature and general applicability to various medical image segmentation scenarios. Our released code is available at \url{https://github.com/Mengqi-Lei/ConDSeg}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Major challenges in medical image segmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework of the proposed ConDSeg. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The structure of CDFA. the lateral feature map (i.e. ei , i = 1, 2, 3, 4) are concate￾nated along the channel direction to form F . Then F is fed into CDFA (except e4, which is directly inputted into CDFA). On the other hand, ff g and fbg are adjusted to match the dimensions of F through convolutional layers and bilin￾ear upsampling before being fed into CDFA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Here, One-Stage and Two-Stage respectively rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of convergence curves when training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Model performance on ISIC-2016 dataset when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The t-SNE Visualisation of ff g, fbg and fuc. (a) represents the results for training ConDSeg without the aux￾iliary head as well Lf g, Lbg and Lcompl, while (b) represents the results when they are used. Each column is the result of a different image. Here, green repr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualisation of segmentation results of different methods on datasets with different modalities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The structure of the auxiliary head in SID. Here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The structure of the baseline in the Ablation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The structure of the proposed SA-Decoder. Here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. DMF2Mel: A Dynamic Multiscale Fusion Network for EEG-Driven Mel Spectrogram Reconstruction

    cs.SD 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    DMF2Mel, a dynamic multiscale fusion network, reports the best mel spectrogram reconstruction scores on SparrKULee, though test-set hyperparameter tuning makes the comparison unreliable.

  2. Query Nearby: Offset-Adjusted Mask2Former enhances small-organ segmentation

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    An offset-adjusted Mask2Former variant reports higher Dice scores for small-organ segmentation on HaNSeg and SegRap2023, though the SOTA claim relies on non-standard evaluation settings.

  3. Towards Accurate and Interpretable Neuroblastoma Diagnosis via Contrastive Multi-scale Pathological Image Analysis

    cs.CV 2025-04 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    CMSwinKAN, a lightweight Swin-KAN hybrid with contrastive multi-scale fusion, reportedly outperforms pathology foundation models on neuroblastoma classification and achieves 100% WSI accuracy on a private dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Abdollahi, B.; Tomita, N.; and Hassanpour, S. 2020. Data augmentation in training deep learning models for medical image analysis. Deep learners and deep learner descriptors for medical applications, 167--180

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Bui, N.-T.; Hoang, D.-H.; Nguyen, Q.-T.; Tran, M.-T.; and Le, N. 2024. MEGANet: Multi-Scale Edge-Guided Attention Network for Weak Boundary Polyp Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 7985--7994

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cao, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, J.; Jiang, D.; Zhang, X.; Tian, Q.; and Wang, M. 2022. Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In European conference on computer vision, 205--218. Springer

    2022

  6. [6]

    L.; and Zhou, Y

    Chen, J.; Lu, Y.; Yu, Q.; Luo, X.; Adeli, E.; Wang, Y.; Lu, L.; Yuille, A. L.; and Zhou, Y. 2021. Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Chen, Z.; Tian, Z.; Zhu, J.; Li, C.; and Du, S. 2022. C-cam: Causal cam for weakly supervised semantic segmentation on medical image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11676--11685

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    C.; Gutman, D.; Celebi, M

    Codella, N. C.; Gutman, D.; Celebi, M. E.; Helba, B.; Marchetti, M. A.; Dusza, S. W.; Kalloo, A.; Liopyris, K.; Mishra, N.; Kittler, H.; et al. 2018. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the 2017 international symposium on biomedical imaging (isbi), hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic). In 2018 IEEE 15th ...

    work page 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Cossio, M. 2023. Augmenting medical imaging: a comprehensive catalogue of 65 techniques for enhanced data analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01178

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    I.; Waldner, F.; Caccetta, P.; and Wu, C

    Diakogiannis, F. I.; Waldner, F.; Caccetta, P.; and Wu, C. 2020. ResUNet-a: A deep learning framework for semantic segmentation of remotely sensed data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 162: 94--114

    2020

  3. [11]

    Dong, Z.; Yuan, G.; Hua, Z.; and Li, J. 2024. Diffusion model-based text-guided enhancement network for medical image segmentation. Expert Systems with Applications, 123549

    2024

  4. [12]

    Fan, D.-P.; Ji, G.-P.; Zhou, T.; Chen, G.; Fu, H.; Shen, J.; and Shao, L. 2020. Pranet: Parallel reverse attention network for polyp segmentation. In International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 263--273. Springer

    2020

  5. [13]

    Fang, Y.; Chen, C.; Yuan, Y.; and Tong, K.-y. 2019. Selective feature aggregation network with area-boundary constraints for polyp segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October ...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Feng, S.; Zhao, H.; Shi, F.; Cheng, X.; Wang, M.; Ma, Y.; Xiang, D.; Zhu, W.; and Chen, X. 2020. CPFNet: Context pyramid fusion network for medical image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 39(10): 3008--3018

    2020

  7. [15]

    Goceri, E. 2023. Medical image data augmentation: techniques, comparisons and interpretations. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(11): 12561--12605

    2023

  8. [16]

    Gu, Z.; Cheng, J.; Fu, H.; Zhou, K.; Hao, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, T.; Gao, S.; and Liu, J. 2019. Ce-net: Context encoder network for 2d medical image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 38(10): 2281--2292

    2019

  9. [17]

    C.; Celebi, E.; Helba, B.; Marchetti, M.; Mishra, N.; and Halpern, A

    Gutman, D.; Codella, N. C.; Celebi, E.; Helba, B.; Marchetti, M.; Mishra, N.; and Halpern, A. 2016. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI) 2016, hosted by the international skin imaging collaborat...

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

  11. [19]

    H.; Johansen, D.; De Lange, T.; Johansen, H

    Jha, D.; Smedsrud, P. H.; Johansen, D.; De Lange, T.; Johansen, H. D.; Halvorsen, P.; and Riegler, M. A. 2021. A comprehensive study on colorectal polyp segmentation with ResUNet++, conditional random field and test-time augmentation. IEEE journal of biomedical and health info...

    2021

  12. [20]

    H.; Riegler, M

    Jha, D.; Smedsrud, P. H.; Riegler, M. A.; Halvorsen, P.; De Lange, T.; Johansen, D.; and Johansen, H. D. 2020. Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset. In MultiMedia Modeling: 26th International Conference, MMM 2020, Daejeon, South Korea, January 5--8, 2020, Proceedings, Part II...

    2020

  13. [21]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lei, M.; and Wang, X. 2024. EPPS: Advanced Polyp Segmentation via Edge Information Injection and Selective Feature Decoupling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11846

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Liu, X.; Song, L.; Liu, S.; and Zhang, Y. 2021. A review of deep-learning-based medical image segmentation methods. Sustainability, 13(3): 1224

    2021

  16. [24]

    Malhotra, P.; Gupta, S.; Koundal, D.; Zaguia, A.; Enbeyle, W.; et al. 2022. Deep neural networks for medical image segmentation. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    L.; Lee, M.; Heinrich, M.; Misawa, K.; Mori, K.; McDonagh, S.; Hammerla, N

    Oktay, O.; Schlemper, J.; Folgoc, L. L.; Lee, M.; Heinrich, M.; Misawa, K.; Mori, K.; McDonagh, S.; Hammerla, N. Y.; Kainz, B.; et al. 2018. Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Peng, J.; and Wang, Y. 2021. Medical Image Segmentation With Limited Supervision: A Review of Deep Network Models. IEEE Access, 9: 36827--36851

    2021

  19. [27]

    B.; Wahid, A.; Khan, M

    Qureshi, I.; Yan, J.; Abbas, Q.; Shaheed, K.; Riaz, A. B.; Wahid, A.; Khan, M. W. J.; and Szczuko, P. 2023. Medical image segmentation using deep semantic-based methods: A review of techniques, applications and emerging trends. Information Fusion, 90: 316--352

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part II...

    2015

  21. [29]

    R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D

    Selvaraju, R. R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 618--626

    2017

  22. [30]

    P.; Chen, H.; Qi, X.; Heng, P.-A.; Guo, Y

    Sirinukunwattana, K.; Pluim, J. P.; Chen, H.; Qi, X.; Heng, P.-A.; Guo, Y. B.; Wang, L. Y.; Matuszewski, B. J.; Bruni, E.; Sanchez, U.; et al. 2017. Gland segmentation in colon histology images: The glas challenge contest. Medical image analysis, 35: 489--502

    2017

  23. [31]

    K.; Jha, D.; Bagci, U.; and Ali, S

    Tomar, N. K.; Jha, D.; Bagci, U.; and Ali, S. 2022. TGANet: Text-guided attention for improved polyp segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 151--160. Springer

    2022

  24. [32]

    Wang, J.; Chen, F.; Ma, Y.; Wang, L.; Fei, Z.; Shuai, J.; Tang, X.; Zhou, Q.; and Qin, J. 2023. Xbound-former: Toward cross-scale boundary modeling in transformers. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

    2023

  25. [33]

    Wang, R.; Lei, T.; Cui, R.; Zhang, B.; Meng, H.; and Nandi, A. K. 2022. Medical image segmentation using deep learning: A survey. IET Image Processing, 16(5): 1243--1267

    2022

  26. [34]

    Wu, H.; Chen, S.; Chen, G.; Wang, W.; Lei, B.; and Wen, Z. 2022. FAT-Net: Feature adaptive transformers for automated skin lesion segmentation. Medical image analysis, 76: 102327

    2022

  27. [35]

    D.; Hensher, D

    Xi, H.; Nelson, J. D.; Hensher, D. A.; Hu, S.; Shao, X.; and Xie, C. 2024. Evaluating travel behavior resilience across urban and rural areas during the COVID-19 pandemic: contributions of vaccination and epidemiological indicators. Transportation research part A: policy and p...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Xie, Y.; Yang, B.; Guan, Q.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Q.; and Xia, Y. 2023. Attention mechanisms in medical image segmentation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17937

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Xu, Q.; Ma, Z.; Na, H.; and Duan, W. 2023. DCSAU-Net: A deeper and more compact split-attention U-Net for medical image segmentation. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 154: 106626

    2023

  30. [38]

    Xun, S.; Li, D.; Zhu, H.; Chen, M.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Chen, M.; Wu, B.; Zhang, H.; Chai, X.; et al. 2022. Generative adversarial networks in medical image segmentation: A review. Computers in biology and medicine, 140: 105063

    2022

  31. [39]

    Yu, Z.; Yu, L.; Zheng, W.; and Wang, S. 2023. EIU-Net: Enhanced feature extraction and improved skip connections in U-Net for skin lesion segmentation. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 107081

    2023

  32. [40]

    Yue, G.; Han, W.; Jiang, B.; Zhou, T.; Cong, R.; and Wang, T. 2022. Boundary constraint network with cross layer feature integration for polyp segmentation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(8): 4090--4099

    2022

  33. [41]

    Zhao, Y.; Li, J.; Ren, L.; and Chen, Z. 2024. DTAN: Diffusion-based Text Attention Network for medical image segmentation. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 168: 107728

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zheng, J.; Liu, H.; Feng, Y.; Xu, J.; and Zhao, L. 2023. CASF-Net: Cross-attention and cross-scale fusion network for medical image segmentation. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 229: 107307

    2023

  35. [43]

    Zhou, T.; Zhou, Y.; He, K.; Gong, C.; Yang, J.; Fu, H.; and Shen, D. 2023. Cross-level feature aggregation network for polyp segmentation. Pattern Recognition, 140: 109555

    2023

  36. [44]

    M.; Tajbakhsh, N.; and Liang, J

    Zhou, Z.; Rahman Siddiquee, M. M.; Tajbakhsh, N.; and Liang, J. 2018. Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, a...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.