Collaborative Multi-agent Learning for MR Knee Articular Cartilage Segmentation

Chaowei Tan; Dimitris N. Metaxas; Kang Li; Shaoting Zhang; Zhennan Yan

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 13 references

Collaborative Multi-agent Learning for MR Knee Articular Cartilage Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-agent adversarial learning segments knee cartilage in 3D MR scans with best scores

desk verdict A legitimate adversarial multi-agent framework that beats its own baseline, but the coarse-to-fine ROI dependency leaves a real gap for exactly the pathology the paper targets. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04469 v1 pith:6F2FEBUM submitted 2019-08-13 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LGcs.MA

Chaowei Tan , Zhennan Yan , Shaoting Zhang , Kang Li , Dimitris N. Metaxas This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LGcs.MA PACS 87.19.xf87.57.nf

keywords multi-agentlearningadversarialcartilagesegmentationMRIkneeregionofinterestosteoarthritisROIfusionattentionskipconnection

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

This paper proposes a fully automatic framework for segmenting femoral, tibial, and patellar cartilage in large, high-resolution 3D knee MR images. The authors argue that instead of one network processing the entire volume, three parallel segmentation agents each work on a small region of interest for one cartilage, and an adversarial discriminator enforces joint shape and spatial consistency when the results are fused back into the original space. The reported experiments show the full collaborative method outperforms its non-adversarial variant, a coarse VNet-style baseline, and DenseASPP-based variants on all metrics, while staying within GPU memory limits.

What carries the argument

The ROI-fusion layer F(Af, At, Ap) is the load-bearing component: it takes the three agents' binary cartilage masks, uses the recorded ROI coordinates to fuse them back into the original knee joint space as a single multi-cartilage label, and then backpropagates the adversarial discriminator's loss to each individual agent. This lets the agents be trained both on their own fine-grained ROI (low class imbalance) and on the joint label (shape/spatial constraints) simultaneously. Attention-based skip connections in each agent (a learned single-channel mask weighting the low-level features before concatenation) support thin-structure, unclear-boundary segmentation.

What would settle it

Run the proposed pipeline on a set of knee MR volumes with large focal cartilage defects or severe atrophy and check whether the coarse segmentor (C0) still produces a mask that overlaps each GT cartilage; if any true-positive cartilage voxel is entirely outside the extracted ROI, the final segmentation cannot recover it and the claimed reliability fails on those cases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a collaborative multi-agent segmentation network, where each agent segments one cartilage within a tightly cropped ROI and an adversarial sub-network judges the fused multi-cartilage label against the ground truth, produces the most accurate delineation of all three knee cartilages compared to the evaluated alternatives. The ROI-fusion layer is the key mechanism: it reassembles the individual binary masks into a full multi-label volume and, during backpropagation, passes the discriminator's loss back to every agent, forcing the agents to jointly respect inter-cartilage position and shape priors. In the authors' experiments on 176 OAI MR knee volumes, this full pipeline (P2) achieves the best Dice similarity coefficient, volumetric overlap error, and average surface distance for each cartilage and overall, and the authors conclude it can provide reliable automatic cartilage assessments for knee osteoarthritis analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The coarse segmentor reliably localizes every cartilage into its predetermined ROI, so each agent only ever sees the correct tissue; if a severely damaged or atrophic cartilage is missed by the coarse mask, no agent can recover it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Automatic, reliable cartilage segmentation becomes feasible on high-resolution 3D MR data with limited GPU memory, since each agent only processes a small ROI.
The same collaborative multi-agent pattern—ROI-wise agents plus adversarial joint-label learning—can be transferred to other multi-organ or multi-structure segmentation tasks where inter-object spatial constraints matter.
Comparing P2 with P1 shows that the adversarial collaboration step, not just the ROI cropping or the attention skips, is what brings the accuracy gain for all three cartilages.
The reported low average surface distances suggest the method could support downstream quantitative biomarkers such as cartilage thickness and surface area in OA studies.

Reading between the lines

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

The two-stage design makes the final mask's accuracy conditional on the coarse segmentor's recall: a cartilage so damaged or atrophied that the coarse mask misses it will never reach any agent, so the method's clinical value on severe OA cases hinges on the coarse stage never dropping a true positive.
One could test the framework's generality by applying the same ROI-fusion-plus-adversarial collaboration to other paired thin structures (e.g., hip cartilage, intervertebral discs) where a fixed ROI size and location prior are easy to define.
The attention-based skip connection is generic, so an ablation that swaps it for plain concatenation inside the same collaborative setup would isolate how much of the gain comes from attention versus from the adversarial collaborator.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Jian,

Read the knee cartilage segmentation paper. The bottom line: the narrow claim holds up. The adversarial collaborative multi-agent framework (P2) beats its own no-adversarial variant (P1) on all three cartilages and all metrics in Table 1, and the ablations make that fairly convincing. The architecture is a genuine new combination: per-cartilage agents with attention skip connections, a ROI-fusion layer that backpropagates the discriminator gradient to all agents, and a joint-label discriminator. That is a reasonable way to handle large 3D volumes with thin structures while keeping GPU memory manageable. The evaluation on 176 OAI volumes is a solid amount of data, and the results (e.g., overall DSC 0.893) are respectable, though not clearly ahead of the shape-model postprocessing of Ambellan et al.

The main soft spot is the one the stress-test flagged: the whole fine-segmentation stage depends on the coarse segmentor producing a mark for every cartilage. If the coarse mask misses an atrophic or partially absent patellar cartilage, no ROI is generated and the corresponding agent cannot recover it. The paper reports C0 patellar DSC of 0.771 ± 0.132, which suggests that on some fraction of the 30 test volumes the coarse mask is substantially wrong. There is no analysis of how often that causes an empty ROI or how many ground-truth voxels fall outside the fixed ROIs. This is not fatal for the paper's internal comparison, but it directly undercuts the broader claim that the method can be used for reliable quantitative OA assessment, because the failure mode is exactly the pathology of interest. The authors should have investigated and reported this.

Other soft spots are smaller. The DenseASPP comparison is against blocks inserted into their own agent network, not the original architecture, which weakens the 'superior performance' claim but does not distort the main ablation. There are no statistical significance tests, though the differences between P2 and P1 look reasonably consistent. No code or ROI size values are given, so reproducibility is limited. For a MICCAI-style paper these are minor; for a journal they would matter more.

The paper is honest and clearly written. The core mechanism is plausible, and the ablation supports it. I would send it out for peer review, but the revision must include a coverage analysis of the coarse stage and a discussion of what happens when a cartilage is missing. That is the difference between "improves over a baseline" and "reliable for OA."

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a coarse-to-fine framework for segmenting femoral, tibial, and patellar cartilage in high-resolution 3D MR knee volumes from the OAI dataset. A coarse VNet-like segmentor localizes each cartilage and extracts fixed-size ROIs; three fine segmentation agents then process the ROIs with attention-augmented skip connections. A ROI-fusion layer reassembles the agent outputs into a multi-label mask in the original volume, and an adversarial discriminator, conditioned on the input image, provides a joint shape and spatial-constraint loss to the agents. Experiments on 176 iMorphics volumes (120/26/30 train/validation/test split) compare the full method (P2), the same agents without the adversarial module (P1), the coarse segmentor (C0), and two variants in which DenseASPP blocks replace parts of the agent network (D1, D2). P2 reports the highest DSC, lowest VOE, and lowest ASD across all cartilage groups.

Significance. If the results hold, the main contribution is a practical and memory-efficient way to segment all three knee cartilages in high-resolution data, with a clear ablation (P2 vs P1) isolating the effect of adversarial collaborative learning. The use of a public dataset, the defined train/validation/test split, and the inclusion of mean/std metrics are strengths. The attention-augmented skip connections and the ROI-fusion design are reasonable and clearly described. However, the broader claims of 'superior performance' against state-of-the-art methods are not yet supported by the experimental design, and the method's dependence on coarse-stage ROI detection is not analyzed. The paper is a solid application contribution but needs revision before the claims match the evidence.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Experimental results, Table 1] The comparison against DenseASPP is not a comparison against the original DenseASPP network. D1 and D2 are defined as the proposed agent network with DenseASPP blocks inserted in place of residual blocks/skip connections at certain levels. Therefore the statement in the abstract and conclusions that the proposed method shows 'superior performance' over the state-of-the-art DenseASPP is not established. The authors should either evaluate the original DenseASPP architecture (or a standard VNet with DenseASPP) on the same data and protocol, or rephrase the claim as an ablation of two architectural variations within the proposed framework.
[Section 2, ROI extraction; Section 3, Experimental settings] The method's upper bound depends on the coarse segmentor detecting each cartilage and producing a ROI that contains the cartilage. If the coarse mask misses a severely atrophic or damaged cartilage, the corresponding agent receives an empty or incomplete ROI and cannot recover the tissue. The paper reports C0 patellar DSC of 0.771 ± 0.132, indicating substantial case-to-case variability in the coarse stage, yet P2 reports patellar DSC of 0.880 ± 0.043. No analysis is given of how many test volumes have incomplete or empty coarse ROIs, whether any ground-truth voxels fall outside the extracted ROIs, or how the fixed ROI sizes were chosen beyond 'adequate evaluation on the training data'. Without this information, the claim that the method 'can be used to automatically generate reliable assessments of all important articular cartilages' is not supported for the pathological cases that matter most.
[Table 1 and Section 3] The reported improvements of P2 over P1, D1, D2, and C0 are not accompanied by any statistical significance test. With 30 test volumes and standard deviations as large as 0.439 ASD for P1 patellar, the differences may not be statistically significant. The authors should add paired tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or paired t-test) on DSC, VOE, and ASD across the 30 test subjects, or report confidence intervals, so that the central claim of improvement from collaborative learning is supported rigorously.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3, Experimental settings] The downsizing of the input from 384×384×160 to 192×192×160 for the coarse segmentor is mentioned, but the interpolation method and whether the same resolution is used at test time are not specified.
[Section 2, Collaborative multi-agent learning] The attention skip connection is described as 'o (α⊙Il,I_up_h)' with o denoting concatenation, but the notation could be made cleaner by explicitly writing concat(α⊙Il, I_up_h) and specifying the channel dimensions of α.
[Equations (1) and (2)] The sums in Eq. (1) and (2) are over i without explicitly stating the domain; the authors should state that i ranges over the training samples in a mini-batch.
[Table 1] The table layout places mean and standard deviation on separate rows without clear separation, making it hard to read. Consider using '0.900 ± 0.037' format in a single cell.
[Section 3, Experimental results] The comparison with Xu et al. and Ambellan et al. is indirect because those methods were evaluated on different data splits and protocols. This is acknowledged in part, but the sentence 'the proposed method acquires comparable DSC and VOE scores' should explicitly state that this is an indirect comparison.
[Section 3, Experimental settings] The fixed ROI sizes are not reported in physical or voxel units, and no justification is given for why these sizes are sufficient to cover the observed anatomical variability across the OAI population.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central segmentation claim is evaluated against external manual labels in the OAI dataset, and no prediction or derived result reduces by construction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is empirical: a multi-agent segmentation network with attention skip connections, ROI fusion, and adversarial training produces accurate cartilage labels on a held-out test set of the iMorphics/OAI data. The evaluation metrics (DSC, VOE, ASD) are computed against manual ground truth labels that are not used as inputs to the network at test time, so the headline performance comparison is externally grounded rather than self-referential. The only tuning choice tied to training data is the statement that 'Fixed ROI size of each type of cartilage is pre-defined based on adequate evaluation on the training data.' This is ordinary hyperparameter selection and does not by itself force any test-time segmentation result; the fine agents still learn to segment from image intensities within those ROIs. The coarse segmentor used for ROI extraction is also learned and evaluated, and the final P2 predictions are not algebraically or statistically dictated by C0 outputs. The paper cites some prior work by overlapping authors, notably Tan et al. ISBI 2018 and Uzunbas et al. MICCAI 2013, but those citations are contextual literature references rather than load-bearing justifications of the proposed architecture or its uniqueness. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. Potential concerns about the coarse segmentor missing atrophic cartilage would be correctness or robustness issues, not circularity, because the claim of reliable assessment is not derived from the assumption that the coarse segmentor always succeeds. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the test evaluation and contains no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is empirical and relies on standard supervised learning assumptions plus the coarse-localization premise. No new physical or ontological entities are introduced; the ROI-fusion layer and discriminator are algorithmic components without independent falsifiable handles outside the task. The main hand-chosen parameters are ROI sizes and training hyperparameters.

free parameters (2)

ROI sizes for femoral, tibial, and patellar cartilage = not reported
Section 3 states that 'Fixed ROI size of each type of cartilage is pre-defined based on adequate evaluation on the training data.' These sizes determine what each agent sees and how fusion is performed; no values are given.
Training hyperparameters = agent LR 0.001, discriminator LR 0.0002, batch size 1, LR decay 0.95 every 10 epochs
Section 3 lists these hand-selected choices. They are standard but affect the reported metrics, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The manual cartilage labels in the OAI iMorphics dataset are accurate ground truth for metric computation.
All DSC, VOE, and ASD values in Table 1 are computed against these labels. No inter-observer variability, quality control, or consensus process is reported.
domain assumption The coarse segmentor localizes each cartilage within the fixed ROI.
ROI extraction in Section 2 relies on coarse masks. If localization fails for an atrophic or severely damaged cartilage, the agents cannot recover the missed tissue.
domain assumption Adversarial training of the fused mask improves anatomically meaningful segmentation rather than merely fooling the discriminator.
The only evidence is the P2 versus P1 comparison in Table 1. There is no independent verification that the learned shape priors are anatomically correct or clinically beneficial.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collaborative Multi-agent Learning for MR Knee Articular Cartilage Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6F2FEBUM

@misc{pith2026190804469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collaborative Multi-agent Learning for MR Knee Articular Cartilage Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6F2FEBUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04469}
}

read the original abstract

The 3D morphology and quantitative assessment of knee articular cartilages (i.e., femoral, tibial, and patellar cartilage) in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is of great importance for knee radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) diagnostic decision making. However, effective and efficient delineation of all the knee articular cartilages in large-sized and high-resolution 3D MR knee data is still an open challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework to solve the MR knee cartilage segmentation task. The key contribution is the adversarial learning based collaborative multi-agent segmentation network. In the proposed network, we use three parallel segmentation agents to label cartilages in their respective region of interest (ROI), and then fuse the three cartilages by a novel ROI-fusion layer. The collaborative learning is driven by an adversarial sub-network. The ROI-fusion layer not only fuses the individual cartilages from multiple agents, but also backpropagates the training loss from the adversarial sub-network to each agent to enable joint learning of shape and spatial constraints. Extensive evaluations are conducted on a dataset including hundreds of MR knee volumes with diverse populations, and the proposed method shows superior performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04469 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) and (b) show the coronal and sagittal slices of a 3D MR knee data. The red, green and blue contours indicate the femoral cartilage (FC), tibial cartilage (TC) and patellar cartilage (PC), respectively. (c) demonstrates the cartilage labels in 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Flowchart of the collaborative multi-agent learning for cartilage segmentation. database1 , which has high resolution (0.365mm × 0.365mm × 0.7mm) and large size (384 × 384 × 160). Effective and efficient segmentation of all articular cartilages in such high-resolution and large-sized data is challenging. Furthermore, the radiographic representations of cartilages may vary a lot in individuals with different age and… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of the multiple cartilage ROIs extraction (only show the sagittal view). The number of feature maps in the network is displayed under each block. In this paper, we propose a novel segmentation framework with collaborative multi-agent learning (shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Demonstration of the collaborative multi-agent learning framework for finegrained cartilage segmentation. The agents yield binary labels and the spatial fusion operation outputs a 4-channel result (FC, TC, PC and background). 3 up-samplings (by deconvolutions of filte…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results of subject 1. (a) and (b) show the segmentation and GT labels for FC (red), TC (green), and PC (blue) in sagittal view. (c) is the segmented 3D cartilages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Results of subject 2. (a) shows the segmented cartilages in sagittal view. (b) and (c) demonstrate the GT and segmentation results in 3D view. From the table, we can see that the proposed segmentation P2 achieves the best performance in all metrics. The mean results of…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Medical Image Analysis (2018)

Ambellan, F., Tack, A., Ehlke, M., Zachow, S.: Automated segmentation of knee bone and cartilage combining statistical shape knowledge and convolutional neural networks: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Medical Image Analysis (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Arthritis 2011 (2010)

Eckstein, F., Wirth, W.: Quantitative cartilage imaging in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis 2011 (2010)

work page 2010
[3]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38(2), 585--595 (2019)

He, K., Cao, X., Shi, Y., Nie, D., Gao, Y., Shen, D.: Pelvic organ segmentation using distinctive curve guided fully convolutional networks. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38(2), 585--595 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 19(8), 990--1002 (2011)

Hunter, D.J., Guermazi, A., Lo, G.H., Grainger, A.J., Conaghan, P.G., Boudreau, R.M., Roemer, F.W.: Evolution of semi-quantitative whole joint assessment of knee OA : MOAKS ( MRI O steoarthritis K nee S core). Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 19(8), 990--1002 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02391 (2018)

Jetley, S., Lord, N.A., Lee, N., Torr, P.H.: Learn to pay attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02391 (2018)

arXiv 2018
[6]

In: 3D Vision (3DV), 2016 Fourth International Conference on

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: 3D Vision (3DV), 2016 Fourth International Conference on. pp. 565--571. IEEE (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

In: ISBI

Tan, C., Zhao, L., Yan, Z., Li, K., Metaxas, D., Zhan, Y.: Deep multi-task and task-specific feature learning network for robust shape preserved organ segmentation. In: ISBI. pp. 1221--1224. IEEE (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

In: MICCAI

Uzunba s , M.G., Chen, C., Zhang, S., Pohl, K.M., Li, K., Metaxas, D.: Collaborative multi organ segmentation by integrating deformable and graphical models. In: MICCAI. pp. 157--164. Springer (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 13 references

[9]

In: MICCAI

Xu, C., Xu, L., Brahm, G., Zhang, H., Li, S.: Mutgan: Simultaneous segmentation and quantification of myocardial infarction without contrast agents via joint adversarial learning. In: MICCAI. pp. 525--534. Springer (2018)

2018
[10]

In: Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, pp

Xu, Z., Shen, Z., Niethammer, M.: Contextual additive networks to efficiently boost 3d image segmentations. In: Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, pp. 92--100. Springer (2018)

2018
[11]

In: CVPR

Yang, M., Yu, K., Zhang, C., Li, Z., Yang, K.: Denseaspp for semantic segmentation in street scenes. In: CVPR. pp. 3684--3692 (2018)

2018
[12]

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

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...
[13]

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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Medical Image Analysis (2018)

Ambellan, F., Tack, A., Ehlke, M., Zachow, S.: Automated segmentation of knee bone and cartilage combining statistical shape knowledge and convolutional neural networks: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Medical Image Analysis (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Arthritis 2011 (2010)

Eckstein, F., Wirth, W.: Quantitative cartilage imaging in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis 2011 (2010)

work page 2010

[3] [3]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38(2), 585--595 (2019)

He, K., Cao, X., Shi, Y., Nie, D., Gao, Y., Shen, D.: Pelvic organ segmentation using distinctive curve guided fully convolutional networks. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38(2), 585--595 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 19(8), 990--1002 (2011)

Hunter, D.J., Guermazi, A., Lo, G.H., Grainger, A.J., Conaghan, P.G., Boudreau, R.M., Roemer, F.W.: Evolution of semi-quantitative whole joint assessment of knee OA : MOAKS ( MRI O steoarthritis K nee S core). Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 19(8), 990--1002 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02391 (2018)

Jetley, S., Lord, N.A., Lee, N., Torr, P.H.: Learn to pay attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02391 (2018)

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

In: 3D Vision (3DV), 2016 Fourth International Conference on

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: 3D Vision (3DV), 2016 Fourth International Conference on. pp. 565--571. IEEE (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

In: ISBI

Tan, C., Zhao, L., Yan, Z., Li, K., Metaxas, D., Zhan, Y.: Deep multi-task and task-specific feature learning network for robust shape preserved organ segmentation. In: ISBI. pp. 1221--1224. IEEE (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

In: MICCAI

Uzunba s , M.G., Chen, C., Zhang, S., Pohl, K.M., Li, K., Metaxas, D.: Collaborative multi organ segmentation by integrating deformable and graphical models. In: MICCAI. pp. 157--164. Springer (2013)

work page 2013