Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

RepSNet: A Nucleus Instance Segmentation model based on Boundary Regression and Structural Re-parameterization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that letting every pixel of a nucleus vote on its parent boundary, then cutting instances by connected components, beats pixel-by-pixel boundary classification on the Lizard benchmark, reaching mPQ 0.5633.

desk verdict A real method with a solid official benchmark result, undermined by a leaky local split and an unexplained boundary-loss gradient. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05073 v1 pith:QW3TXU2P submitted 2025-05-08 eess.IV cs.CV

Shengchun Xiong , Xiangru Li , Yunpeng Zhong , Wanfen Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords nucleusinstancesegmentationboundaryregressionvotingmechanismstructuralre-parameterizationRepSNethistopathologicalimagesLizarddataset
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 proposes a scheme, NBRIA, in which nucleus instance segmentation is treated as a boundary-regression problem rather than a pixel-classification problem. For every pixel inside a nucleus, the network predicts the distance to that nucleus's boundary in four directions; a voting mechanism then accumulates those predictions from all pixels of the nucleus and keeps only boundary positions receiving enough votes. On the Lizard dataset the resulting model, RepSNet, reports mPQ 0.5633, above the StarDist baseline at 0.5472, with an inference rate of 10 images of 256x256 pixels per second. The authors also report second place on the CoNIC official test leaderboard (mPQ 0.478) and note that the online system closed before an offline ensemble version could be submitted.

What carries the argument

The Boundary Voting Mechanism (BVM) is the load-bearing object: it aggregates boundary position information (BPI) from every foreground pixel's four-direction distance prediction, maps those distances to absolute coordinates, counts votes, and applies a hard threshold ($e_t=3$) to output a nucleus boundary map. This voting step is what converts a regression output into instance masks, and the paper argues it provides synergistic belief enhancement, so consistent small-error estimates reinforce each other while scattered large-error estimates cancel as noise. The two supporting pieces are the structural re-parameterization (RepVGG units plus RepUpsample deconvolution branches) that gives training-time multi-scale branches and inference-time single-branch efficiency, and the boundary isoheight loss $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ that penalizes boundary deviations adaptively.

What would settle it

In the released training code, trace whether gradients from $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ reach the encoder and decoders through the voting step; then retrain with the $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ term removed, keeping BVM at inference, and check whether the mPQ gap in the paper's ablation persists across several seeds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a nucleus boundary is more reliably located by fusing weak per-pixel boundary-distance estimates than by classifying boundary status directly. RepSNet computes a boundary-distance (BD) map with four channels that give, for each nucleus pixel, the distances to its parent nucleus boundary up, down, left, and right. The boundary voting mechanism converts these relative distances into absolute boundary positions, counts how many pixels vote for each position, and keeps positions whose vote count exceeds a threshold ($e_t=3$). Connected-component analysis on the thresholded boundary map yields instances. The boundary loss $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ uses morphological isoheights around the annotated boundary to penalize predicted boundary pixels by their approximate Chebyshev distance from the annotation, which the authors argue resists annotation noise. A fully re-parameterizable encoder-decoder, built from RepVGG units and a proposed RepUpsample module, gives multi-scale receptive fields during training and collapses to single-branch convolutions at inference.

Load-bearing premise

The training loop assumes that the boundary loss $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ can steer the network weights even though the boundary map it penalizes is produced by counting votes and applying a hard threshold, an operation with no defined gradient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the Lizard test split, the reported mPQ of 0.5633 exceeds StarDist (0.5472) and Hover-Net (0.5314), with higher AJI, DICE, and PQ among the compared methods.
  • The model processes about 10 images of 256x256 pixels per second with 18.6M parameters, which is faster than Hover-Net and StarDist in the paper's measurements.
  • Replacing the post-processing of Hover-Net and StarDist with BVM improves their AJI, DICE, PQ, and mPQ, so the voting mechanism transfers to other distance-based nucleus models.
  • Adding the boundary isoheight loss $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ to StarDist and DCAN improves their metrics, indicating the loss transfers beyond RepSNet.
  • Under equal training budgets, RepSNet reaches higher mPQ than StarDist at the same epoch count and at a fixed five-hour training time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the BVM recipe suggests any distance-regression nucleus model, not only RepSNet, could replace its watershed or NMS post-processing with voting and gain robustness on overlapping nuclei; the paper's own exterior ablations on Hover-Net and StarDist already point in this direction.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's remark about adding more distance directions implies a testable scaling law, where increasing from four to eight or radial directions should improve recall on highly irregular nuclei but will raise the BD map's channel count and data demand.
  • Editorial inference: because the voting threshold is a hard step inside the loss path, a reader auditing the released code should check whether $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ reaches the weights through a straight-through or softened approximation; if it is detached, the reported gain of $L_{\mathrm{nb}}$ would need a different explanation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a nucleus instance segmentation and classification scheme, NBRIA(RepSNet), based on boundary distance regression, a boundary voting mechanism (BVM), and a structurally re-parameterizable encoder-decoder network with RepVGG/RepUpsample modules and a boundary isoheight loss. The method is evaluated on the Lizard/CoNIC dataset against U-Net, DCAN, Hover-Net, and StarDist, reporting an mPQ of 0.5633 on a locally constructed test split and 0.478 on the official CoNIC final test set, where it ranks second behind StarDist.

Significance. The boundary-voting idea and the use of structural re-parameterization for an encoder-decoder segmentation network are interesting and potentially useful. The public release of code, dataset split configuration, and pretrained models is a concrete strength, and the official CoNIC second-place result provides independent, externally evaluated evidence that the method is near the state of the art. However, the paper's primary claim that NBRIA(RepSNet) outperforms the CoNIC SOTA StarDist is contradicted by the paper's own official leaderboard result, and the boundary loss as formulated has no defined gradient through the voting procedure. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims and must be resolved before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1, Table 4] The headline claim that NBRIA(RepSNet) 'significantly outperforms' StarDist by 0.0161 mPQ rests entirely on the locally constructed random patch split described in Section 4.1. Because Lizard patches are extracted from whole-slide images, a random patch-level 7:1:2 split can place patches from the same source slide in both training and test sets, allowing the model to memorize slide-specific staining and tissue texture. The paper itself provides strong evidence of this inflation: the official CoNIC final test set (Table 4) lists NBRIA(RepSNet) at mPQ 0.478, behind EPFL(StarDist) at 0.501. The abstract and contribution bullet in Section 1 therefore overstate the result. The authors should either re-evaluate all comparisons on a slide-exclusive split or present the official leaderboard as the primary basis for SOTA claims.
  2. [Section 3.2.3, Eq. (6), Algorithm 1] The boundary loss Lnb in Eq. (6) is computed over the set NB, which is produced by Algorithm 1 via the hard thresholding operation 'NB > e_t' applied to the voting counts. This operation has no defined gradient with respect to the network parameters, yet Eq. (1) states that the total loss 'jointly optimizes' NP, NT, BD, and NB. As written, the gradient of Lnb cannot reach the weights of RepSNet through the voting step. If the authors intend a straight-through estimator, a soft approximation, or a detached NB, they must state this explicitly; otherwise the ablation results in Tables 2 and 3 cannot be attributed to Lnb, because the loss would be constant during training.
  3. [Section 4.5.1] The boundary voting threshold e_t is selected 'based on mPQ metric' on the same locally constructed evaluation split used to report the headline mPQ of 0.5633. If this selection was performed on the test split, the reported numbers are optimistically biased. Please specify which split (validation vs. test) was used for threshold selection. If the test split was used, the comparison in Table 1 should be repeated with the threshold fixed before any test-set evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The word 'repectively' should be 'respectively'.
  2. [Section 4.2] FLOPs(B) is used to denote floating-point operations, but the text says 'floating-point operations per second'; the former is a count and the latter is a rate. Please use separate notation for FLOPs and FPS.
  3. [Section 4.6, Table 5] The notation 'PQ +' is not defined; please clarify whether it denotes per-class PQ, PQ^+ as used in the CoNIC challenge, or something else.
  4. [Section 3.2.1] The phrase 'thoroughgoing re-parameterization model' is awkward; consider 'fully re-parameterizable model'.
  5. [Section 4.3.1] The sentence 'For Hover-Net, in order to enable the model to learn horizontal-vertical distance maps, the authors used ResNet-101 as its backbone network' is a comparison rationale but could be better supported by citing the Hover-Net paper's exact architecture details; currently it reads as an unsupported claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed gains are empirical comparisons against independent baselines and an official leaderboard, with no prediction reducing to a fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is algorithmic and empirically evaluated rather than definitionally self-supporting. RepSNet outputs NP, NT, and BD maps; the Boundary Voting Mechanism (BVM, Algorithm 1) converts BD into an NB map by thresholded voting; connected-component analysis yields instances; and class labels are assigned by majority vote from NT (Secs. 3.1-3.3). None of these quantities is defined in terms of the reported mPQ/AJI/DICE scores, and no reported metric is a renamed version of a fitted parameter. The only tuned scalar, the BVM voting threshold et, is set to 3 after validation and used as a fixed hyperparameter in subsequent experiments; loss weights are set to 1 by convenience. This is standard hyperparameter selection, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The boundary loss Lnb (Eq. 6) is computed from label-derived isoheights and penalizes deviations of predicted boundary pixels; although its gradient path through the thresholded NB map is not justified, that is a technical correctness concern, not a circular definition, because the loss is a training objective rather than a claimed prediction. The headline 'outperforms StarDist by 0.0161' is based on the locally split test set of Sec. 4.1, whereas the official CoNIC leaderboard in Table 4 shows NBRIA(RepSNet) at 0.478 behind StarDist at 0.501; this is a contradiction between two external empirical evaluations, not a circular reduction, since neither evaluation is constructed from the model's own fitted parameters or from equations that assume the result. External citations, including RepVGG, Lizard/CoNIC, Hover-Net, StarDist, and DCAN, are independent prior work; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is invoked. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for its central claim, and no circularity step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are the usual deep learning hyperparameters plus two method-specific constants (voting threshold 3 and isoheight radius 5), both chosen by hand or by test-set search. The main unstated axioms concern evaluation validity and the trainability of the boundary loss.

free parameters (5)
  • voting threshold e_t = 3
    Selected by mPQ on the local test set in Section 4.5.1; used in all main results.
  • isoheight maximum tau = 5
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2.3 to cap the boundary loss range.
  • loss weights lambda_np, lambda_nt, lambda_bd, lambda_nb = 1 each
    Set to 1 based on experience, Section 3.2.3.
  • network depth/width [2,3,3,6,3] = n=5
    Selected by architecture search on local validation data, Section 4.6.
  • number of distance directions = 4
    Design choice for BPI vectors, Section 3.1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lizard ground-truth annotations are correct and the random patch-level split is independent.
    The evaluation treats the 7:1:2 patch split as a valid test; patches from the same source WSI may appear in both train and test, which could inflate results (Section 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The BVM voting threshold on a grid recovers the true boundary from noisy per-pixel distance estimates.
    The paper motivates this statistically as 'synergistic belief enhancement' but provides no formal guarantee; Algorithm 1 relies on the mode of voted positions (Section 3.2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The Chebyshev-distance isoheight maps with tau=5 approximate Euclidean boundary distance sufficiently for Lnb.
    Section 3.2.3 explicitly states the distance is Chebyshev, not Euclidean, and tau is a hand-set cap.
  • domain assumption Gradients for Lnb flow through the non-differentiable BVM.
    Eq. (6) defines Lnb on NB, which is the thresholded output of Algorithm 1; the paper does not explain a differentiable proxy, so end-to-end training of this loss is assumed without support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RepSNet: A Nucleus Instance Segmentation model based on Boundary Regression and Structural Re-parameterization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QW3TXU2P

@misc{pith2026250505073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RepSNet: A Nucleus Instance Segmentation model based on Boundary Regression and Structural Re-parameterization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QW3TXU2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05073}
}
read the original abstract

Pathological diagnosis is the gold standard for tumor diagnosis, and nucleus instance segmentation is a key step in digital pathology analysis and pathological diagnosis. However, the computational efficiency of the model and the treatment of overlapping targets are the major challenges in the studies of this problem. To this end, a neural network model RepSNet was designed based on a nucleus boundary regression and a structural re-parameterization scheme for segmenting and classifying the nuclei in H\&E-stained histopathological images. First, RepSNet estimates the boundary position information (BPI) of the parent nucleus for each pixel. The BPI estimation incorporates the local information of the pixel and the contextual information of the parent nucleus. Then, the nucleus boundary is estimated by aggregating the BPIs from a series of pixels using a proposed boundary voting mechanism (BVM), and the instance segmentation results are computed from the estimated nucleus boundary using a connected component analysis procedure. The BVM intrinsically achieves a kind of synergistic belief enhancement among the BPIs from various pixels. Therefore, different from the methods available in literature that obtain nucleus boundaries based on a direct pixel recognition scheme, RepSNet computes its boundary decisions based on some guidances from macroscopic information using an integration mechanism. In addition, RepSNet employs a re-parametrizable encoder-decoder structure. This model can not only aggregate features from some receptive fields with various scales which helps segmentation accuracy improvement, but also reduce the parameter amount and computational burdens in the model inference phase through the structural re-parameterization technique. Extensive experiments demonstrated the superiorities of RepSNet compared to several typical benchmark models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Medical Imaging 32(12), 2169– 2178 (2013)

    Filipczuk, P., Fevens, T., Krzy˙ zak, A., Mon- czak, R.: Computer-aided breast cancer diag- nosis based on the analysis of cytological Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template RepSNet 23 images of fine needle biopsies. IEEE Trans- actions on Medical Imaging 32(12), 2169– 2178 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI. 2013.2275151

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Cancer Research 75(15 Supplement), 285 (2015)

    Sethi, A., Sha, L., Deaton, R.J., Macias, V., Beck, A.H., Gann, P.H.: Abstract lb- 285: Computational pathology for predicting prostate cancer recurrence. Cancer Research 75(15 Supplement), 285 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    A review of machine learning approaches, challenges and prospects for computational tumor pathology

    Pan, L., Feng, Z., Peng, S.: A review of machine learning approaches, challenges and prospects for computational tumor pathol- ogy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01728 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 13(06), 583–598 (1991)

    Vincent, L., Soille, P.: Watersheds in digi- tal spaces: an efficient algorithm based on immersion simulations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 13(06), 583–598 (1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 53(11), 2405–2414 (2006)

    Yang, X., Li, H., Zhou, X.: Nuclei segmen- tation using marker-controlled watershed, tracking using mean-shift, and kalman filter in time-lapse microscopy. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 53(11), 2405–2414 (2006). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TCSI.2006.884469

    work page arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Medical Image Anal- ysis 36, 135–146 (2017)

    Chen, H., Qi, X., Yu, L., Dou, Q., Qin, J., Heng, P.-A.: Dcan: Deep contour-aware networks for object instance segmentation from histology images. Medical Image Anal- ysis 36, 135–146 (2017). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.media.2016.11.004

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    In: Chung, A.C.S., Gee, J.C., Yushkevich, P.A., Bao, S

    Zhou, Y., Onder, O.F., Dou, Q., Tsougenis, E., Chen, H., Heng, P.-A.: Cia-net: Robust nuclei instance segmentation with contour- aware information aggregation. In: Chung, A.C.S., Gee, J.C., Yushkevich, P.A., Bao, S. (eds.) Information Processing in Medi- cal Imaging, pp. 682–693. Springer, Cham (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Medical Image Analysis 65, 101786 (2020)

    Zhao, B., Chen, X., Li, Z., Yu, Z., Yao, S., Yan, L., Wang, Y., Liu, Z., Liang, C., Han, C.: Triple u-net: Hematoxylin-aware nuclei segmentation with progressive dense feature aggregation. Medical Image Analysis 65, 101786 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.media.2020.101786

    arXiv 2020

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing 38(2), 448–459 (2019)

    Naylor, P., La´ e, M., Reyal, F., Walter, T.: Segmentation of nuclei in histopathology images by deep regression of the distance map. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing 38(2), 448–459 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TMI.2018.2865709

    2019

  2. [10]

    Medical Image Analysis 58, 101563 (2019)

    Graham, S., Vu, Q.D., Raza, S.E.A., Azam, A., Tsang, Y.W., Kwak, J.T., Rajpoot, N.: Hover-net: Simultaneous segmentation and classification of nuclei in multi-tissue histology images. Medical Image Analysis 58, 101563 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.media.2019.101563

    2019

  3. [11]

    ArXiv abs/2111.01557 (2021)

    Yao, K., Huang, K., Sun, J., Hussain, A., Jude, C.: Pointnu-net: Simultaneous multi- tissue histology nuclei segmentation and classification in the clinical wild. ArXiv abs/2111.01557 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    In: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Ding, X., Zhang, X., Ma, N., Han, J., Ding, G., Sun, J.: Repvgg: Mak- ing vgg-style convnets great again. In: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 13728–13737 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.01352

    2021

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops, pp

    Graham, S., Jahanifar, M., Azam, A., Nimir, M., Tsang, Y.-W., Dodd, K., Hero, E., Sahota, H., Tank, A., Benes, K., Wahab, N., Minhas, F., Raza, S.E.A., El Daly, H., Gopalakrishnan, K., Snead, D., Rajpoot, N.M.: Lizard: A large-scale dataset for colonic nuclear instance segment...

    2021

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.14485 (2021)

    Graham, S., Jahanifar, M., Vu, Q.D., Had- jigeorghiou, G., Leech, T., Snead, D., Raza, S.E.A., Minhas, F., Rajpoot, N.: Conic: Colon nuclei identification and counting chal- lenge 2022. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.14485 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Medical Image Analysis 92, 103047 (2024)

    Graham, S., Vu, Q.D., Jahanifar, M., Weigert, M., Schmidt, U., Zhang, W., Zhang, J., Yang, S., Xiang, J., Wang, X., Rumberger, Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 24 RepSNet J.L., Baumann, E., Hirsch, P., Liu, L., Hong, C., Aviles-Rivero, A.I., Jain, A., Ahn, H., Hong, Y., Azz...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Medical Image Analysis 35, 489–502 (2017)

    Sirinukunwattana, K., Pluim, J.P.W., Chen, H., Qi, X., Heng, P.-A., Guo, Y.B., Wang, L.Y., Matuszewski, B.J., Bruni, E., Sanchez, U., B¨ ohm, A., Ronneberger, O., Cheikh, B.B., Racoceanu, D., Kainz, P., Pfeiffer, M., Urschler, M., Snead, D.R.J., Rajpoot, N.M.: Gland segmentati...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Medical Image Analysis 52, 199–211 (2019)

    Graham, S., Chen, H., Gamper, J., Dou, Q., Heng, P.-A., Snead, D., Tsang, Y.W., Rajpoot, N.: Mild-net: Minimal information loss dilated network for gland instance seg- mentation in colon histology images. Medical Image Analysis 52, 199–211 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.me...

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Medical Image Analysis 80, 102485 (2022)

    Da, Q., Huang, X., Li, Z., Zuo, Y., Zhang, C., Liu, J., Chen, W., Li, J., Xu, D., Hu, Z., Yi, H., Guo, Y., Wang, Z., Chen, L., Zhang, L., He, X., Zhang, X., Mei, K., Zhu, C., Lu, W., Shen, L., Shi, J., Li, J., S, S., Krishnamurthi, G., Yang, J., Lin, T., Song, Q., Liu, X., Gra...

    2022

  11. [19]

    In: Reyes-Aldasoro, C.C., Janowczyk, A., Veta, M., Bankhead, P., Sirinukunwat- tana, K

    Gamper, J., Alemi Koohbanani, N., Benet, K., Khuram, A., Rajpoot, N.: Pannuke: An open pan-cancer histology dataset for nuclei instance segmentation and classifica- tion. In: Reyes-Aldasoro, C.C., Janowczyk, A., Veta, M., Bankhead, P., Sirinukunwat- tana, K. (eds.) Digital Pat...

    2019

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08645 (2020)

    Gamper, J., Kooohbanani, N.A., Rajpoot, N.: Multi-task learning in histo-pathology for widely generalizable model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08645 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    New England Journal of Medicine 375(12), 1109–1112 (2016)

    Grossman, R.L., Heath, A.P., Ferretti, V., Varmus, H.E., Lowy, D.R., Kibbe, W.A., Staudt, L.M.: Toward a shared vision for can- cer genomic data. New England Journal of Medicine 375(12), 1109–1112 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 234–241. Springer, Cham (2015). https: //do...

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Zhou, Z., Rahman Siddiquee, M.M., Tajbakhsh, N., Liang, J.: Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmen- tation. In: Stoyanov, D., Taylor, Z., Carneiro, G., Syeda-Mahmood, T., Martel, A., Maier- Hein, L., Tavares, J.M.R.S., Bradley, A., Papa, J.P., Belagiannis...

    2018

  16. [24]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 36(7), 1550–1560 (2017)

    Kumar, N., Verma, R., Sharma, S., Bhargava, S., Vahadane, A., Sethi, A.: A dataset and a technique for generalized nuclear segmen- tation for computational pathology. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 36(7), 1550–1560 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMI.2017.2677499

    2017

  17. [25]

    Frontiers in bioengineering and biotech- nology, 53 (2019)

    Vu, Q.D., Graham, S., Kurc, T., To, M.N.N., Shaban, M., Qaiser, T., Koohbanani, N.A., Khurram, S.A., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Zhao, T., et al.: Methods for segmentation and clas- sification of digital microscopy tissue images. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotech- nology, 53 (2...

    2019

  18. [26]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 11, pp

    Schmidt, U., Weigert, M., Broaddus, C., Myers, G.: Cell detection with star-convex polygons. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 11, pp. 265–273 (...

    2018

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pp

    Girshick, R.: Fast r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pp. 1440–1448 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    Kirillov, A., He, K., Girshick, R., Rother, C., Dollar, P.: Panoptic segmentation. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.