Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

DBF-Net: A Dual-Branch Network with Feature Fusion for Ultrasound Image Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dual-branch network that explicitly models how lesion boundaries relate to lesion interiors achieves higher Dice scores than prior methods on three public ultrasound datasets.

desk verdict A modest, plausible dual-branch ultrasound segmentation net whose SOTA claim is undercut by cross-protocol baseline comparisons and missing significance tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11116 v1 pith:Y26N6CAU submitted 2024-11-17 eess.IV cs.CV

Guoping Xu , Ximing Wu , Wentao Liao , Xinglong Wu , Qing Huang , Chang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords ultrasoundimagesegmentationdual-branchnetworkfeaturefusionboundarybody-boundaryrelationshipDicesimilaritycoefficientdeeplearning
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

Ultrasound images make lesion boundaries hard to distinguish, and the paper claims that segmentation improves when a network explicitly learns how a lesion's boundary relates to its interior (the 'body'). To test this, the authors build DBF-Net, a dual-branch encoder-decoder where one branch segments the lesion body and another segments the boundary, with a feature fusion module that lets the two branches exchange information. On three public datasets—breast cancer (BUSI), brachial plexus nerves (UNS), and infantile hemangioma (UHES)—the network reports Dice coefficients of 81.05%, 76.41%, and 87.75%, outperforming the CNN-based and transformer-based methods compared. A careful reader would care because boundary quality matters clinically, and the paper offers a lightweight way to improve it without a large parameter increase.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Feature Fusion and Supervision (FFS) block, placed at two decoder stages. Each FFS block takes concatenated encoder and decoder features, splits them into two parallel convolutional streams that pre-generate body features and boundary features, then exchanges information through a feature fusion module. The fused body and boundary maps are each supervised with a combined weighted cross-entropy and Dice loss, and the final output is a trainable-weighted sum $\hat{F} = \lambda F^*_{\text{body}} + F^*_{\text{bound}}$ with $\lambda$ initialized to 1 and learned during training. The body and boundary ground truths are generated from the original mask by a distance transform with a threshold $\alpha = 1$.

What would settle it

Re-run every baseline listed in Table 2 on the same five-fold splits, input resolutions, and training schedule as DBF-Net; if the best alternative matches or exceeds DBF-Net's Dice score within one standard deviation on BUSI (81.05±10.44%), the paper's central claim of superiority is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that the key to better ultrasound segmentation is to treat boundary and body as two complementary supervised tasks under a shared encoder, then fuse their features at multiple scales. This design, implemented through the Feature Fusion and Supervision (FFS) block, consistently beats the considered baselines on all three datasets, and the ablation study shows that both the auxiliary body/boundary supervision and the trainable-parameter fusion contribute to the gain. The paper further claims that this is achieved with only 3.2 million parameters, about a third of U-Net's parameter count.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that DBF-Net outperforms existing methods assumes that the comparison numbers for the other methods were obtained under the same training and evaluation conditions, yet several baseline results were taken from other papers without rerunning, and the transformer comparison was run at a lower input resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, explicitly coupling boundary and body segmentation is a reliable way to improve accuracy on noisy, low-contrast imaging modalities like ultrasound.
  • The same dual-branch supervision and fusion design can be transferred to other boundary-ambiguous segmentation tasks, including CT, MRI, or optical coherence tomography.
  • The trainable fusion parameter $\lambda$ offers a principled way to balance boundary and interior cues, and could be studied as a per-image or per-patient variable.
  • Because DBF-Net uses only 3.2 million parameters, it is plausible to deploy it in real-time ultrasound systems without specialized hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The body-boundary fusion idea could be extended to 3D ultrasound volumes by replacing the 2D convolution branches with 3D convolutions, a step the paper does not discuss.
  • The distance-transform threshold $\alpha$ that defines the boundary is fixed at 1 pixel; tuning $\alpha$ per dataset or lesion size might change results, which the paper does not explore.
  • The learned $\lambda$ values staying near 1 when fusion is enabled suggests the fusion module acts as a regularizer that stabilizes the relative weight of the boundary branch; removing fusion leads to $\lambda$ growing above 1, implying the body branch dominates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes DBF-Net, a dual-branch encoder-decoder architecture for ultrasound image segmentation that explicitly models lesion body and boundary information. It introduces a Feature Fusion and Supervision (FFS) block that pre-generates body and boundary features, fuses them with a trainable parameter, and supervises both intermediate maps and the final segmentation. The method is evaluated on three public datasets (BUSI, UNS, UHES) with five-fold cross-validation, reporting DSC of 81.05±10.44%, 76.41±5.52%, and 87.75±4.18%, respectively, and is compared with CNN-based and transformer-based methods, with ablations on BUSI. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance and releases code.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established under a uniform evaluation protocol, the contribution would be a modest but useful addition to medical image segmentation: explicit interaction between body and boundary streams, a lightweight architecture (3.2M parameters), and public code. The idea of fusing boundary and body features with learnable weights is reasonable and the ablations show a consistent trend. However, the central 'state-of-the-art' claim currently rests on comparisons that are partly cross-protocol, partly under-powered, and not statistically tested; the transformer comparison is conducted at a different input resolution and even the paper's own discussion concedes suboptimal training settings. The evidence is therefore not yet sufficient to support the headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.3, Table 2] The state-of-the-art claim relies on six methods marked with '*' whose results are quoted as 'official results' from other papers, not re-run under this paper's five-fold cross-validation, 512x512 resizing, augmentation, and loss settings. The only fully in-pipeline competitors are U-Net, DeepLabV3+, LinkNet, UNeXt, and DBBS-Net. The margin over the best quoted official result (81.05 vs 80.65 on BUSI for MSSA-Net) is smaller than the reported standard deviations, and no statistical significance test is provided. Because the central claim is that DBF-Net 'outperforms existing approaches', this is a load-bearing protocol gap: the claim should be re-supported by re-running the baselines under identical conditions, or by restricting the claim to in-pipeline comparisons and adding significance tests.
  2. [3.4, Table 3] The transformer comparison is performed at 224x224 input resolution, whereas the main experiments use 512x512 (BUSI), 580x420 (UNS), and 448x256 (UHES) resolutions; the Discussion in Section 4 itself concedes that the transformer training settings may be suboptimal. Moreover, the DBF-Net results in Table 3 differ drastically from those in Table 2 for the same dataset (e.g., 55.49 vs 81.05 DSC on BUSI), confirming that the comparison is not protocol-equivalent. Table 3 therefore does not support the stated claim that DBF-Net outperforms transformer-based methods; it should be framed as a low-resolution auxiliary experiment, or all methods should be run at the same resolution.
  3. [3.6, Tables 5 and 6] The ablation conclusions are based on small performance differences relative to the reported standard deviations. For example, the full configuration with two FFS blocks and feature fusion achieves 81.05±10.44, while the one-FFS-with-fusion configuration achieves 80.73±7.68; the improvement is well within one standard deviation. No paired significance tests or confidence intervals are reported, so the claim that the two-FFS configuration is 'optimal' is not statistically supported. This matters because the ablation is the primary evidence for the contribution of the FFS module.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title, Abstract, Conclusion] The model name is inconsistent: the title, methods, and experiments use 'DBF-Net', while the abstract and conclusion use 'UBBS-Net'. A conference-paper baseline named 'DBBS-Net' also appears in Table 2, making the naming confusion particularly problematic. Please unify the terminology.
  2. [3.2, BUSI description] The text 'In accordance with the configuration specified in the UNeXt [ ? ]' contains an unresolved citation placeholder '[ ? ]'; this should be fixed before publication.
  3. [2.5, Equation (9)] Equation (9) states that L* is given by Lwbce and 'Dice loss', but the Dice term is not explicitly named in the sentence; please introduce Ldice explicitly before the equation.
  4. [Figures 5 and 7] The P-R and ROC curves are rendered at low resolution with garbled axis labels and legend text, making them difficult to read. Higher-resolution figures with legible annotations are needed.
  5. [Table 7] The learned fusion parameter λ is a post-hoc observation from five training runs, not a prediction, and the claim that FFM 'harmonizes' the weights is based on small numerical differences without variance or statistical support. Please either soften this interpretation or provide additional evidence.
  6. [Header] The manuscript header reads 'Preprint submitted to Nuclear Physics B', which appears to be a template artifact and is inconsistent with the medical imaging content; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: DBF-Net is an empirical architecture paper; no prediction is equivalent to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation that assumes its own conclusion. The proposed equations define a network: Eqs. (1)-(2) derive boundary/body labels from the ground-truth mask by distance transform; Eqs. (3)-(7) define convolutional feature pre-generation and fusion; Eq. (5) fuses features with a trainable scalar lambda; Eqs. (8)-(12) define the losses. The final segmentation target G_final equals the union of G_bound and G_body by construction, but the network's predictions of body and boundary are learned from images, and the final output is evaluated against the full mask, so the label identity does not force the model's performance. Table 7 reports learned lambda values post-hoc; they are not predictions of any independent quantity. Self-citations (DBBS-Net [26] and LeViT-UNet [30]) appear only as baselines or comparisons, not as load-bearing justification for the architecture's validity, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged limitations, such as transformer baselines run at 224x224 and possibly suboptimal transformer settings, are experimental-protocol concerns rather than circularity. The central claim is empirical and externally testable on three public datasets, so no circular step is present.

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

The paper is an empirical deep learning study. The central results depend on hand-picked hyperparameters (boundary threshold α, loss weights, training schedule), on a domain-specific definition of boundary and body labels, and on the assumption that the proposed feature fusion module is an effective way to combine the two branches. No first-principles derivation is offered; the configurations are justified only by the reported empirical outcomes.

free parameters (5)
  • boundary threshold α = 1
    Used in Eq. (1) to split foreground into boundary and body labels; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and the central supervision depends on it.
  • loss weights λ1, λ2 = 1 and 10
    Set as defaults in Eq. (9); not tuned per dataset, but they control the balance between weighted BCE and Dice losses for all three supervision terms.
  • weighted BCE β = 1
    Hyperparameter in Eq. (12) that determines the per-pixel weight; set to 1 as default.
  • trainable fusion parameter λ = 0.94 to 1.18 with FFM; 1.21 to 1.61 without FFM (Table 7)
    Learned during training in Eq. (5); the paper reports its final values and interprets them, but it is a free parameter of the model.
  • training hyperparameters = batch sizes 2,4,6; epochs 300,100,350; lr 0.001; power 0.9
    Chosen per dataset; the results depend on these values, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Distance transform defines boundary as pixels within α of the background
    Section 2.2, Eq. (1). This is the operational definition of boundary and body used for supervision; it assumes ultrasound lesion boundaries correspond to a fixed-width erosion of the mask.
  • domain assumption Low-level encoder features are boundary-related and high-level features are body-related
    Section 2.1 states E1 and E2 focus on low-level features like texture and boundary, while E3-E5 favor semantic information. This motivates which features feed the FFS blocks.
  • ad hoc to paper The FFS module with residual convolutions captures the body-boundary relationship
    The design in Eq. (6)-(7) is presented without derivation or comparison to alternative fusion schemes; its effectiveness is only shown empirically in the ablation.
  • standard math Standard matrix operations and loss functions are well-defined
    Convolution, distance transform, BCE, Dice, and Adam optimization are standard background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DBF-Net: A Dual-Branch Network with Feature Fusion for Ultrasound Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y26N6CAU

@misc{pith2026241111116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DBF-Net: A Dual-Branch Network with Feature Fusion for Ultrasound Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y26N6CAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11116}
}
read the original abstract

Accurately segmenting lesions in ultrasound images is challenging due to the difficulty in distinguishing boundaries between lesions and surrounding tissues. While deep learning has improved segmentation accuracy, there is limited focus on boundary quality and its relationship with body structures. To address this, we introduce UBBS-Net, a dual-branch deep neural network that learns the relationship between body and boundary for improved segmentation. We also propose a feature fusion module to integrate body and boundary information. Evaluated on three public datasets, UBBS-Net outperforms existing methods, achieving Dice Similarity Coefficients of 81.05% for breast cancer, 76.41% for brachial plexus nerves, and 87.75% for infantile hemangioma segmentation. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of UBBS-Net for ultrasound image segmentation. The code is available at https://github.com/apple1986/DBF-Net.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three different convolution neural network architectur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed DBF-Net. 8x and 2x are upsampling ratios. C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Details of boundary and body feature fusion block. Conv m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of qualitative results between U-Net, DeepLa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: P-R and ROC curves of DBF-Net, LinkNet, U-Net, DeepLa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of qualitative results between LeViT-UNet-19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: P-R and ROC curves of DBF-Net, LeViT-UNet-192, MedT a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example output of feature fusion module and final output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. M. Sigrist, J. Liau, A. El Kaffas, M. C. Chammas, and J. K. Will- mann, Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical a p- plications, Theranostics 7, 1303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Akkus, J

    Z. Akkus, J. Cai, A. Boonrod, A. Zeinoddini, A. D. Weston, K. A. Philbrick, and B. J. Erickson, A survey of deep-learning applications in ultrasound: Artificial intelligence–powered ultrasound for improv ing clinical workflow, Journal of the American College of Radiology 16, 1318–1328 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Tanter and M

    M. Tanter and M. Fink, Ultrafast imaging in biomedical ultrasound, IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequenc y control 61, 102–119 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Hynynen and R

    K. Hynynen and R. M. Jones, Image-guided ultrasound phased a rrays are a disruptive technology for non-invasive therapy, Physics in Me dicine & Biology 61, R206 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Wang, Deep learning in medical ultrasound image segmentation: A review, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07703 (2020)

    Z. Wang, Deep learning in medical ultrasound image segmentation: A review, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07703 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, Fully convolutional networ ks for semantic segmentation, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3431–3440, 2015. 20

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, U-net: Convolutiona l net- works for biomedical image segmentation, in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th Int ernational Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedin gs, Part III 18, pages 234–241, Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Chaurasia and E

    A. Chaurasia and E. Culurciello, Linknet: Exploiting encoder repre sen- tations for efficient semantic segmentation, in 2017 IEEE visual com- munications and image processing (VCIP) , pages 1–4, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Ning, S. Zhong, Q. Feng, W. Chen, and Y. Zhang, SMU-net: sa liency- guided morphology-aware U-net for breast lesion segmentation in u ltra- sound image, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 41, 476–490 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Huang, Y

    Q. Huang, Y. Huang, Y. Luo, F. Yuan, and X. Li, Segmentation o f breast ultrasound image with semantic classification of superpixels, Medical Image Analysis 61, 101657 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    K. Wang, S. Liang, and Y. Zhang, Residual feedback network f or breast lesion segmentation in ultrasound image, in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th Inte rnational Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceed-...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Y. Hu, Y. Guo, Y. Wang, J. Yu, J. Li, S. Zhou, and C. Chang, Aut omatic tumor segmentation in breast ultrasound images using a dilated fully convolutional network combined with an active contour model, Medic al physics 46, 215–228 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    J. Chen, H. You, and K. Li, A review of thyroid gland segmentatio n and thyroid nodule segmentation methods for medical ultrasound image s, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 185, 105329 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Shahroudnejad, X

    A. Shahroudnejad, X. Qin, S. Balachandran, M. Dehghan, D. Z onoobi, J. Jaremko, J. Kapur, M. Jagersand, M. Noga, and K. Punithaku- mar, TUN-Det: a novel network for thyroid ultrasound nodule det ec- tion, in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventio n– MICCAI 2...

    2021

  7. [15]

    S. Yin, Q. Peng, H. Li, Z. Zhang, X. You, K. Fischer, S. L. Furth , G. E. Tasian, and Y. Fan, Automatic kidney segmentation in ultrasound im- ages using subsequent boundary distance regression and pixelwise clas- sification networks, Medical image analysis 60, 101602 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    W. Qin, J. Wu, F. Han, Y. Yuan, W. Zhao, B. Ibragimov, J. Gu, an d L. Xing, Superpixel-based and boundary-sensitive convolutional n eu- ral network for automated liver segmentation, Physics in Medicine & Biology 63, 095017 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Takikawa, D

    T. Takikawa, D. Acuna, V. Jampani, and S. Fidler, Gated-scnn: Gated shape cnns for semantic segmentation, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 5229–5238, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Marin, Z

    D. Marin, Z. He, P. Vajda, P. Chatterjee, S. Tsai, F. Yang, an d Y. Boykov, Efficient segmentation: Learning downsampling near sem an- tic boundaries, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision , pages 2131–2141, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    G. Xu, H. Cao, and G. Jiang, Boundary-attention Loss Functio n in Neural Network for Pathological Lymph Nodes Segmentation base d on PET/CT Images, in 2020 9th International Conference on Bioinformat- ics and Biomedical Science , pages 90–94, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    C. Wang, Y. Zhang, M. Cui, P. Ren, Y. Yang, X. Xie, X.-S. Hua, H. Bao, and W. Xu, Active boundary loss for semantic segmentation, in Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pages 2397–2405, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    H. Jia, Y. Song, H. Huang, W. Cai, and Y. Xia, HD-Net: hybrid dis- criminative network for prostate segmentation in MR images, in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCA I 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 1 3–17, 2019, Proc...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Zhang, H

    Z. Zhang, H. Fu, H. Dai, J. Shen, Y. Pang, and L. Shao, Et-net : A generic edge-attention guidance network for medical image segme nta- tion, in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventio n– MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, Chi na, Octo- ber...

    2019

  15. [23]

    Mishra, S

    D. Mishra, S. Chaudhury, M. Sarkar, and A. S. Soin, Ultrasoun d image segmentation: a deeply supervised network with attention to boun d- aries, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 66, 1637–1648 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Y. Yuan, L. Huang, J. Guo, C. Zhang, X. Chen, and J. Wang, OC - Net: Object context for semantic segmentation, International Journal of Computer Vision 129, 2375–2398 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    L.-C. Chen, Y. Zhu, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff, and H. Adam, E ncoder- decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segm en- tation, in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801–818, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    W. Liao, G. Xu, X. Wu, X. Zhang, X. He, and C. Li, Dual-branch body and boundary supervision network for ultrasound image segm en- tation, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) , pages 3071–3077, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. M. J. Valanarasu and V. M. Patel, Unext: Mlp-based rapid med ical image segmentation network, in Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2022: 25th Internatio nal Confer- ence, Singapore, September 18–22, 2022, Proceedings, Part V, pages 23–33, S...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Al-Dhabyani, M

    W. Al-Dhabyani, M. Gomaa, H. Khaled, and A. Fahmy, Dataset of breast ultrasound images, Data in brief 28, 104863 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Montoya, Hasnin, shirzad, W

    A. Montoya, Hasnin, shirzad, W. Cukierski, Ultrasound Nerve S egmen- tation, Kaggle, (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    G. Xu, X. Wu, X. Zhang, and X. He, Levit-unet: Make faster en - coders with transformer for medical image segmentation, arXiv pr eprint arXiv:2107.08623 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. M. J. Valanarasu, P. Oza, I. Hacihaliloglu, and V. M. Patel, Med - ical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmen ta- tion, in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventio n– MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, F rance, Sep...

    2021

  24. [32]

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

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. Khan, M. Naseer, M. Hayat, S. W. Zamir, F. S. Khan, and M. S hah, Transformers in vision: A survey, ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 1–41 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Popel and O

    M. Popel and O. Bojar, Training tips for the transformer mode l, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00247 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. Liu, X. Liu, J. Gao, W. Chen, and J. Han, Understanding the d iffi- culty of training transformers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08249 (2 020)

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y. Zhao, G. Wang, C. Tang, C. Luo, W. Zeng, and Z.-J. Zha, A ba ttle of network structures: An empirical study of cnn, transformer , and mlp, arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13002 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. Xu, K. Huang, Q. Chen, and X. Qi, Mssa-net: Multi-scale self- attention network for breast ultrasound image segmentation, in 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (I SBI), 2021, pp. 827–831

    2021

  30. [38]

    ¨Uzen, Convmixer-based encoder and classification-based decode r ar- chitecture for breast lesion segmentation in ultrasound images, Biomed- ical Signal Processing and Control , vol

    H. ¨Uzen, Convmixer-based encoder and classification-based decode r ar- chitecture for breast lesion segmentation in ultrasound images, Biomed- ical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 89, p. 105707, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jiang, W

    T. Jiang, W. Xing, M. Yu, and D. Ta, A hybrid enhanced atten- tion transformer network for medical ultrasound image segmenta tion, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 86, p. 105329, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Huang, Q

    X. Huang, Q. Wang, J. Chen, L. Chen, and Z. Chen, Effective hy brid attention network based on pseudo-color enhancement in ultraso und im- age segmentation, Image and Vision Computing , vol. 137, p. 104742, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    G. Chen, Y. Liu, J. Qian, J. Zhang, X. Yin, L. Cui, and Y. Dai, Dseu - net: A novel deep supervision seu-net for medical ultrasound imag e segmentation, Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 223, p. 119939, 2023. 24

    2023

  34. [42]

    G. Chen, L. Li, J. Zhang, and Y. Dai, Rethinking the unpretentio us u-net for medical ultrasound image segmentation, Pattern Recognition, p. 109728, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Learning directiona l feature maps for cardiac mri segmentation

    Feng Cheng, Cheng Chen, Yukang Wang, Heshui Shi, Yukun Cao , Dan- dan Tu, Changzheng Zhang, and Yongchao Xu. Learning directiona l feature maps for cardiac mri segmentation. In Medical Image Comput- ing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd I nterna- tional Conf...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.