Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

SP${ }^3$ : Superpixel-propagated pseudo-label learning for weakly semi-supervised medical image segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 Sparse scribbles, expanded and refined through superpixels, reach roughly 80% Dice on cardiac and brain-tumor segmentation with about 3% of the full annotation workload.

desk verdict A useful scribble-based WSSS pipeline with real gains in the main tables, but the paper as written has an internal numeric inconsistency that blocks verification of the headline claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11636 v1 pith:YV22XCFU submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV cs.AI

Shiman Li , Jiayue Zhao , Shaolei Liu , Xiaokun Dai , Chenxi Zhang , Zhijian Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords weaklysemi-supervisedsegmentationscribbleannotationsuperpixelpropagationpseudo-labellearningsuperpixel-leveluncertaintydynamicthresholdingmedicalimage
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

SP3 is a weakly semi-supervised medical image segmentation method that trains a dual-decoder network on a small set of scribble-annotated images together with a large pool of unlabeled images. The paper's claim is that superpixel structure can compensate for the sparseness of scribbles: scribbles are expanded to entire superpixels, high-quality superpixels picked by a dynamic threshold are used to refine the network's pseudo-labels, and superpixel-level disagreement between the two decoders weights the pseudo-label loss. On ACDC cardiac MRI and BraTS2019 brain tumor data, the method reports roughly 80% Dice while using about 3% of the pixel annotation effort of full supervision, and it outperforms eight existing weakly or semi-supervised methods across the WSSS, weakly supervised, and semi-supervised settings. If this holds, segmentation models for organs and tumors could be trained from a few scribbled images instead of dense pixel-level labels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SLIC superpixel partition, which serves as the unit for annotation propagation, pseudo-label refinement, and uncertainty estimation. In scribble expansion (Eq. (1)) a superpixel inherits the class of any scribble it contains; in refinement (Eqs. (5)-(7)) a superpixel is relabeled to its dominant predicted class when that class's proportion exceeds an EMA-based, class-specific threshold; and in uncertainty guidance (Eqs. (8)-(11)) the within-superpixel disagreement rate between the two decoder outputs produces weights $w_{ij}=e^{-u_j}$ that rescale the pseudo-label Dice loss. The argument assumes pixels inside a superpixel share texture, and therefore class, and that superpixel boundaries line up with anatomical boundaries, so these three uses turn sparse scribbles and noisy predictions into denser, more reliable supervision.

What would settle it

Run SP3 on a dataset with long thin structures, such as coronary vessels or nerve fibers, where SLIC superpixels frequently straddle true boundaries, and compare Dice against the same pipeline with superpixel refinement disabled; a drop to or below the no-superpixel baseline, or a monotonic decline as the fraction of class-mixed superpixels rises, would show the core assumption fails exactly where it matters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that superpixels computed offline by SLIC are a dependable structural prior that can be propagated through network training. A scribble that intersects a superpixel labels the entire superpixel by Eq. (1), converting sparse strokes into dense partial supervision. Pseudo-labels, formed by averaging the two decoder predictions, are refined by Eq. (5): any superpixel whose dominant-class pixel proportion exceeds a class-specific threshold is relabeled to that class, with the threshold updated through an exponential moving average (Eq. (7)) so that more superpixels qualify early in training and fewer once predictions become reliable. The fraction of pixels where the two decoders disagree inside a superpixel, Eq. (8), defines a superpixel-level uncertainty weight $w_{ij}=e^{-u_j}$ applied to the pseudo-label Dice loss, forcing the model to learn preferentially from regions where its own predictions agree. With these three operations, the paper reports 0.7937 and 0.8186 Dice on ACDC at 10% and 20% labeled ratios, above the fully supervised dense-annotation baseline, and 0.8064 Dice on BraTS2019 at a 10% labeled ratio, nearly matching the 0.8093 baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that superpixels are internally one-class regions whose borders match the true anatomical borders, so a scribble can validly color an entire superpixel and a dominant predicted class can safely overwrite the rest of a superpixel; when superpixels straddle real boundaries or mix tissues, both expansion and refinement inject structured boundary noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a 10% labeled ratio on ACDC the method reports 0.7937 Dice and 0.6740 JI, above the scribble-only lower bound (0.5232 Dice) and above the dense-annotation upper bound (0.6824 Dice).
  • At a 20% labeled ratio on ACDC it reports 0.8186 Dice, 0.0607 higher than the fully supervised upper bound, indicating the superpixel and pseudo-label machinery contributes more than additional labeled pixels.
  • On BraTS2019 whole-tumor segmentation the method reports 0.7506 Dice at 5% labels and 0.8064 Dice at 10% labels, nearly matching the fully supervised 0.8093 Dice baseline at the higher ratio.
  • The reported annotation cost is about 3.5% of fully supervised pixel labeling (3.57% on ACDC, 3.49% on BraTS2019), combining the 10% labeled-sample budget with scribble sparsity.
  • Ablation results trace the gains to expanded-scribble supervision, superpixel refinement with dynamic class-specific thresholds, and superpixel-level uncertainty weighting: removing any of them lowers Dice and worsens boundary metrics such as ASD.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested consequence of the superpixel assumption is that SP3's achievable boundary accuracy is capped by SLIC superpixel resolution: any true boundary falling inside a superpixel is erased by refinement, so objects much thinner than one superpixel should see disproportionately large Dice losses.
  • A stress test follows directly: on datasets with thin branching structures such as coronary vessels, the frequency of class-mixed superpixels should rise, and the advantage of SP3 over its no-superpixel pseudo-label baseline should shrink or reverse compared with ACDC.
  • The method treats weak labels abstractly once a scribble exists, so the same expansion-refinement-uncertainty loop could transfer to point or bounding-box annotations and to other imaging modalities whose tissue boundaries align with superpixels; the paper hints at point supervision but does not test this portability.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SP3, a weakly semi-supervised segmentation method that combines a small set of scribble annotations with a large set of unlabeled images. The method propagates scribble labels within SLIC superpixels to obtain dense partial supervision, refines model-generated pseudo-labels by relabeling superpixels selected with a class-specific EMA threshold, and reweights the pseudo-label loss with superpixel-level uncertainty derived from the disagreement of two decoders. Experiments on ACDC and BraTS2019 compare SP3 with weakly supervised, semi-supervised, and weakly semi-supervised baselines, and report state-of-the-art Dice scores at roughly 3% annotation cost. The paper also provides ablations of the three components, thresholding strategies, uncertainty definitions, superpixel counts, and an annotation-cost analysis.

Significance. If the reported numbers are correct, the paper would provide a simple combination of established ingredients (scribble expansion, pseudo-label refinement, uncertainty weighting) that works well for weakly semi-supervised medical image segmentation. The experiments cover two public benchmarks and several supervision settings, which is useful for the community, and the annotation-cost analysis is a helpful practical addition. However, the main empirical claim is currently not verifiable because of a direct conflict between the main comparison table and the ablation tables, and no code or data splits are provided. The conceptual novelty over SOUSA and existing scribble-based semi-supervised methods is incremental; the value of the paper rests almost entirely on the experimental demonstration, so the numeric inconsistencies are load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-B, Tables VI and VII; IV-B, Table I] The numeric record for the ACDC 10% labeled-ratio WSSS setting is internally inconsistent. Table I reports "Ours" as 0.7937 Dice and 3.89 ASD, while Table V reports the same method at 20% labeled ratio as 0.8186 Dice and 2.26 ASD. Table VI, captioned "ACDC dataset under 10% labeled ratio," reports the full method Tt(c) as 0.8186 Dice and 2.85 ASD, and Table VII, also under "ACDC ... 10% labeled ratio," reports "Ours" as 0.8186 Dice and 2.85 ASD. Thus 0.8186 appears both as the 20% result and as the 10% ablation result, while the standalone 10% result is 0.7937. At least one of these tables is mislabeled or computed under a different setting, so the headline state-of-the-art claim, the dynamic-threshold analysis, and the uncertainty ablation cannot be checked as written. The authors must correct every table, state the exact labeled-ratio definition, and release the data splits or a reproducible protocol.
  2. [III-B, Eq. (1); III-C, Eq. (5)] The core mechanism assumes that SLIC superpixels are class-homogeneous and aligned with true anatomical boundaries. Eq. (1) relabels every pixel in a superpixel with the class of any intersecting scribble, and Eq. (5) relabels the entire superpixel with the dominant pseudo-label class; if a superpixel straddles a boundary, both operations inject structured boundary error. The paper only controls superpixel size through n and asserts that a large n excludes multi-class scribbles, but it never measures how often superpixels cross object boundaries or contain multiple tissues. Please report superpixel purity and boundary-recall statistics on the evaluation folds, and show sensitivity to SLIC compactness and to n beyond the single-fold tuning in Table VIII.
  3. [IV-B, Tables I-II] On BraTS2019, the reported gains over SOUSA are within one standard deviation at both 5% labeled ratio (0.7506±0.1810 vs 0.7320±0.1906) and 10% labeled ratio (0.8064±0.1592 vs 0.7525±0.1629). The paper does not report paired significance tests or fold-wise results, so the claim that SP3 "outperforms" the comparison methods on the tumor dataset is not statistically established. Please add per-fold paired tests or report the number of runs and the fold-wise breakdown, especially given the high variance on BraTS2019.
minor comments (7)
  1. [III-C, Eq. (7)] The EMA update in Eq. (7) uses max(ψ(c)) inside a batch average, but the index over which the maximum is taken and the per-sample definition of the class proportion are not explicit; also, the relationship between the scalar threshold T in Eq. (5) and the class-specific threshold Tt(c) in Eq. (7) should be stated.
  2. [III-D, Eq. (10)] The weighted Dice loss formula is typographically corrupted: the denominator "P P ∗ W + P Y ∗ W" is not a readable sum, and the numerator is ambiguous. Please rewrite Eq. (10) with explicit pixel indices and sums.
  3. [Algorithm 1 and Eq. (12)] The notation for the supervised loss is inconsistent: Algorithm 1 uses LSUP, while Eq. (12) uses Lsup. Please unify the notation throughout.
  4. [II-B] There is a dangling citation "[ ?], [30]" in the pseudo-label paragraph; please replace it with the intended reference.
  5. [Table VIII caption] The caption refers to "red color" to indicate Dice improvement, but the table is not rendered in color. Use boldface or another unambiguous marker instead.
  6. [IV-B.1] The sentence "Higher improvement above the upper bound and other comparative methods with lower label ratios show our method can resist noise better" is not directly supported by the comparisons shown; please rephrase or provide the supporting analysis.
  7. [IV-A] The implementation details do not report the values of τ0 and λ used in the main experiments, even though these are free parameters of the dynamic threshold in Eq. (7). Please state them explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the SOTA claim rests on external test-set evaluation; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear, so the circularity score is low.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. Scribble expansion (Eq. 1) propagates scribble labels to whole SLIC superpixels; pseudo-label refinement (Eq. 5) relabels a superpixel with the dominant class of the model's own prediction when the class proportion exceeds T; the dynamic threshold (Eq. 7) is an EMA of those proportions; and superpixel-level uncertainty (Eq. 8) is decoder disagreement. None of these steps defines a prediction in terms of the target quantity it is claimed to predict: the headline 'approximately 80% Dice' claim is an empirical comparison on held-out ACDC and BraTS2019 test splits, not a quantity derived from the fitted thresholds or superpixel expansions. The self-referential nature of self-training (model outputs generate pseudo-labels and thresholds) is not definitional circularity; it is a standard learning loop whose validity is settled by external evaluation. I found no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing claim imported from the authors' prior work. There are several self-citations sharing authors with this paper ([2], [6], [7], and especially [68]), but they appear in the introduction, related-work comparisons, and a closing 'may inspire' remark; none carries the argument. The closest potential issue is an internal inconsistency in the experimental record: Table VI reports 0.8186 Dice for ACDC 10% labeled ratio, while Table I reports 0.7937 for the same setting and lists 0.8186 for 20%. That is a correctness/verifiability concern, not circularity, because it does not make the result true by construction. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 2 due only to minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

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

The method's logic relies on three domain assumptions about superpixel homogeneity, class-proportion quality filtering, and decoder-disagreement uncertainty. The free parameters are hyperparameters of the superpixel and threshold modules. No new physical or conceptual entities are proposed.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of superpixels n per image or volume = ACDC: 350, BraTS: 400
    Chosen by hyperparameter experiments on one fold or dataset (Table VIII and Figure 7); the value changes scribble expansion granularity and refinement quality.
  • Initial dynamic threshold tau_0 = 0.5
    Set by hand; it seeds the EMA threshold in Eq. (7) and controls how many superpixels are relabeled early in training.
  • EMA momentum lambda in Eq. (7) = Not stated in the paper
    The dynamic threshold update in Eq. (7) depends on this momentum, but its value is not reported, leaving the method under-specified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SLIC superpixels align with semantic object boundaries and are internally class-homogeneous.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) to expand scribbles to whole superpixels and in Eq. (5) to relabel superpixels by majority class; the method's gains rest on this.
  • domain assumption A high proportion of pixels sharing the superpixel majority class indicates a trustworthy pseudo-label region.
    Eqs. (5)-(7) define the dynamic threshold on this class-proportion statistic; no ground-truth-based validation of the criterion is provided.
  • domain assumption Disagreement between the two decoder outputs is a valid estimator of pseudo-label noise at superpixel level.
    Eq. (8) defines uncertainty as the fraction of inconsistent pixels per superpixel and Eq. (11) converts it to weights; this is a heuristic rather than a calibrated or proven uncertainty estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SP${ }^3$ : Superpixel-propagated pseudo-label learning for weakly semi-supervised medical image segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YV22XCFU

@misc{pith2026241111636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SP$ ^3$ : Superpixel-propagated pseudo-label learning for weakly semi-supervised medical image segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YV22XCFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11636}
}
abstract

Deep learning-based medical image segmentation helps assist diagnosis and accelerate the treatment process while the model training usually requires large-scale dense annotation datasets. Weakly semi-supervised medical image segmentation is an essential application because it only requires a small amount of scribbles and a large number of unlabeled data to train the model, which greatly reduces the clinician's effort to fully annotate images. To handle the inadequate supervisory information challenge in weakly semi-supervised segmentation (WSSS), a SuperPixel-Propagated Pseudo-label (SP${}^3$) learning method is proposed, using the structural information contained in superpixel for supplemental information. Specifically, the annotation of scribbles is propagated to superpixels and thus obtains a dense annotation for supervised training. Since the quality of pseudo-labels is limited by the low-quality annotation, the beneficial superpixels selected by dynamic thresholding are used to refine pseudo-labels. Furthermore, aiming to alleviate the negative impact of noise in pseudo-label, superpixel-level uncertainty is incorporated to guide the pseudo-label supervision for stable learning. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on both tumor and organ segmentation datasets under the WSSS setting, using only 3\% of the annotation workload compared to fully supervised methods and attaining approximately 80\% Dice score. Additionally, our method outperforms eight weakly and semi-supervised methods under both weakly supervised and semi-supervised settings. Results of extensive experiments validate the effectiveness and annotation efficiency of our weakly semi-supervised segmentation, which can assist clinicians in achieving automated segmentation for organs or tumors quickly and ultimately benefit patients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Sample images of scribbles, ground truth, and superpixels. b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) An overview of the proposed method. b) Illustration of superpixel-based scribble expansion. c) Illustration of pseudo-label refinement with superpixel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of weakly semi-supervised segmentation results for the ACDC datasets under different labeled ratios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual comparison of weakly semi-supervised segmentation results for the BraTS2019 datasets under different labeled ratios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantitative analysis in iteration. We present the training curves on fold1 of the ACDC dataset with a 10% annotation ratio as follows: a) Dice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative analysis of pseudo label refinement during iteration on two datasets. Upper rows is the original predictions and the lower rows show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Superpixel segmentation results with different parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Bi-Level Collaborative Learning for Few-Shot Scribble-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A bi-level framework that lets a learnable superpixel model and a few-shot scribble-supervised segmentation model teach each other achieves state-of-the-art mean Dice on ACDC and Prostate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,

    G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. A. Setio, F. Ciompi, M. Ghafoorian, J. A. Van Der Laak, B. Van Ginneken, and C. I. S´anchez, “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” Medical image analysis, vol. 42, pp. 60–88, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    A comprehensive survey on deep active learning and its applications in medical image analysis,

    H. Wang, Q. Jin, S. Li, S. Liu, M. Wang, and Z. Song, “A comprehensive survey on deep active learning and its applications in medical image analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14230 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “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 III

    2015

  4. [4]

    nnu-net: Self- adapting framework for u-net-based medical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, J. Petersen, A. Klein, D. Zimmerer, P. F. Jaeger, S. Kohl, J. Wasserthal, G. Koehler, T. Norajitra, S. Wirkert et al., “nnu-net: Self- adapting framework for u-net-based medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10486, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Deep semantic segmentation of natural and medical images: a review,

    S. Asgari Taghanaki, K. Abhishek, J. P. Cohen, J. Cohen-Adad, and G. Hamarneh, “Deep semantic segmentation of natural and medical images: a review,” Artificial Intelligence Review , vol. 54, pp. 137–178, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Density- based one-shot active learning for image segmentation,

    Q. Jin, S. Li, X. Du, M. Yuan, M. Wang, and Z. Song, “Density- based one-shot active learning for image segmentation,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 126, p. 106805, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cold-start active learning for image classification,

    Q. Jin, M. Yuan, S. Li, H. Wang, M. Wang, and Z. Song, “Cold-start active learning for image classification,” Information sciences, vol. 616, pp. 16–36, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Learning to segment medical images with scribble- supervision alone,

    Y . B. Can, K. Chaitanya, B. Mustafa, L. M. Koch, E. Konukoglu, and C. F. Baumgartner, “Learning to segment medical images with scribble- supervision alone,” in Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8th International Workshop, ML-CDS 2018, Held in Conjunct...

    work page 2018

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Adversarial learning of object-aware activation map for weakly-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,

    J. Chen, W. Lu, Y . Li, L. Shen, and J. Duan, “Adversarial learning of object-aware activation map for weakly-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3935–3946, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Attention-based layer fusion and token masking for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,

    Y . Zhang and X. Zhu, “Attention-based layer fusion and token masking for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    A survey on semi-supervised learning,

    J. E. Van Engelen and H. H. Hoos, “A survey on semi-supervised learning,” Machine learning, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 373–440, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Gct: Graph co-training for semi-supervised few-shot learning,

    R. Xu, L. Xing, S. Shao, L. Zhao, B. Liu, W. Liu, and Y . Zhou, “Gct: Graph co-training for semi-supervised few-shot learning,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 8674–8687, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Mmatch: Semi- supervised discriminative representation learning for multi-view clas- sification,

    X. Wang, L. Fu, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, and Z. Li, “Mmatch: Semi- supervised discriminative representation learning for multi-view clas- sification,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech- nology, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 6425–6436, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Mixed-supervised dual-network for medical image segmentation,

    D. Wang, M. Li, N. Ben-Shlomo, C. E. Corrales, Y . Cheng, T. Zhang, and J. Jayender, “Mixed-supervised dual-network for medical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, Octob...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Label-efficient hybrid- supervised learning for medical image segmentation,

    J. Pan, Q. Bi, Y . Yang, P. Zhu, and C. Bian, “Label-efficient hybrid- supervised learning for medical image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 2, 2022, pp. 2026–2034

    2022

  8. [16]

    Segmentation only uses sparse annotations: Unified weakly and semi-supervised learning in medical images,

    F. Gao, M. Hu, M.-E. Zhong, S. Feng, X. Tian, X. Meng, Z. Huang, M. Lv, T. Song, X. Zhang et al. , “Segmentation only uses sparse annotations: Unified weakly and semi-supervised learning in medical images,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 80, p. 102515, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Teach me to segment with mixed supervision: Confident students become masters,

    J. Dolz, C. Desrosiers, and I. B. Ayed, “Teach me to segment with mixed supervision: Confident students become masters,” in Information Processing in Medical Imaging: 27th International Conference, IPMI 2021, Virtual Event, June 28–June 30, 2021, Proceedings 27. Springer, 2021...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  11. [19]

    Learning pixel-level semantic affinity with image- level supervision for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,

    J. Ahn and S. Kwak, “Learning pixel-level semantic affinity with image- level supervision for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 4981–4990

    2018

  12. [20]

    Boxsup: Exploiting bounding boxes to super- vise convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,

    J. Dai, K. He, and J. Sun, “Boxsup: Exploiting bounding boxes to super- vise convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 1635–1643

    2015

  13. [21]

    What’s the point: Semantic segmentation with point supervision,

    A. Bearman, O. Russakovsky, V . Ferrari, and L. Fei-Fei, “What’s the point: Semantic segmentation with point supervision,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2016, pp. 549–565

    2016

  14. [22]

    Scribblesup: Scribble- supervised convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,

    D. Lin, J. Dai, J. Jia, K. He, and J. Sun, “Scribblesup: Scribble- supervised convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 3159–3167

    2016

  15. [23]

    On regularized losses for weakly-supervised cnn segmen- tation,

    M. Tang, F. Perazzi, A. Djelouah, I. Ben Ayed, C. Schroers, and Y . Boykov, “On regularized losses for weakly-supervised cnn segmen- tation,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 507–522

    2018

  16. [24]

    Scribble-based hierarchical weakly supervised learning for brain tumor segmentation,

    Z. Ji, Y . Shen, C. Ma, and M. Gao, “Scribble-based hierarchical weakly supervised learning for brain tumor segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceeding...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Scribble2label: Scribble-supervised cell segmentation via self-generating pseudo-labels with consistency,

    H. Lee and W.-K. Jeong, “Scribble2label: Scribble-supervised cell segmentation via self-generating pseudo-labels with consistency,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedi...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Scribble-supervised medical image segmentation via dual-branch net- work and dynamically mixed pseudo labels supervision,

    X. Luo, M. Hu, W. Liao, S. Zhai, T. Song, G. Wang, and S. Zhang, “Scribble-supervised medical image segmentation via dual-branch net- work and dynamically mixed pseudo labels supervision,” in Interna- tional Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervent...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Cyclemix: A holistic strategy for medical image segmentation from scribble supervision,

    K. Zhang and X. Zhuang, “Cyclemix: A holistic strategy for medical image segmentation from scribble supervision,” 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 11 646–11 655, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusI...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Weakly supervised segmentation of covid19 infection with scribble annotation on ct images,

    X. Liu, Q. Yuan, Y . Gao, K. He, S. Wang, X. Tang, J. Tang, and D. Shen, “Weakly supervised segmentation of covid19 infection with scribble annotation on ct images,” Pattern recognition, vol. 122, p. 108341, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Learning to segment from scribbles using multi-scale adversarial attention gates,

    G. Valvano, A. Leo, and S. A. Tsaftaris, “Learning to segment from scribbles using multi-scale adversarial attention gates,” IEEE Transac- tions on Medical Imaging , vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1990–2001, 2021

    1990

  22. [30]

    Accl: Adversarial constrained-cnn loss for weakly supervised medical image segmentation,

    P. Zhang, Y . Zhong, and X. Li, “Accl: Adversarial constrained-cnn loss for weakly supervised medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00328, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Self pseudo entropy knowledge distillation for semi-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,

    X. Lu, L. Jiao, L. Li, F. Liu, X. Liu, and S. Yang, “Self pseudo entropy knowledge distillation for semi-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    3d semi-supervised learning with uncertainty-aware multi- view co-training,

    Y . Xia, F. Liu, D. Yang, J. Cai, L. Yu, Z. Zhu, D. Xu, A. Yuille, and H. Roth, “3d semi-supervised learning with uncertainty-aware multi- view co-training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2020, pp. 3646–3655

    2020

  25. [33]

    Semi- supervised learning for network-based cardiac mr image segmentation,

    W. Bai, O. Oktay, M. Sinclair, H. Suzuki, M. Rajchl, G. Tarroni, B. Glocker, A. King, P. M. Matthews, and D. Rueckert, “Semi- supervised learning for network-based cardiac mr image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention- MIC- CAI 2017: 20t...

    2017

  26. [34]

    A two-stream mutual attention network for semi-supervised biomedical segmentation with noisy labels,

    S. Min, X. Chen, Z.-J. Zha, F. Wu, and Y . Zhang, “A two-stream mutual attention network for semi-supervised biomedical segmentation with noisy labels,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 4578–4585

    2019

  27. [35]

    Semi-supervised multi-organ segmentation via deep multi-planar co-training,

    Y . Zhou, Y . Wang, P. Tang, S. Bai, W. Shen, E. K. Fishman, and A. L. Yuille, “Semi-supervised multi-organ segmentation via deep multi-planar co-training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02586 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation,

    X. Li, L. Yu, H. Chen, C.-W. Fu, L. Xing, and P.-A. Heng, “Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 523–534, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Adversarial dual-student with differentiable spatial warping for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    C. Cao, T. Lin, D. He, F. Li, H. Yue, J. Yang, and E. Ding, “Adversarial dual-student with differentiable spatial warping for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 793–803, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Multi-task learning using uncer- tainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics,

    A. Kendall, Y . Gal, and R. Cipolla, “Multi-task learning using uncer- tainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics,” inProceedings JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 12 of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018,...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation,

    L. Yu, S. Wang, X. Li, C.-W. Fu, and P.-A. Heng, “Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, Octo- ber 13–...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:160705

    2015

  33. [41]

    Mutual consistency learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Wu, Z. Ge, D. Zhang, M. Xu, L. Zhang, Y . Xia, and J. Cai, “Mutual consistency learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” Medical image analysis , vol. 81, p. 102530, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:248266926

    2021

  34. [42]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,

    X. Luo, G. Wang, W. Liao, J. Chen, T. Song, Y . Chen, S. Zhang, D. N. Metaxas, and S. Zhang, “Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 80, p. 102517, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Deep learning with mixed supervision for brain tumor segmentation,

    P. Mlynarski, H. Delingette, A. Criminisi, and N. Ayache, “Deep learning with mixed supervision for brain tumor segmentation,” Journal of Medical Imaging, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 034 002–034 002, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    A macro-micro weakly-supervised framework for as-oct tissue segmentation,

    M. Ning, C. Bian, D. Lu, H.-Y . Zhou, S. Yu, C. Yuan, Y . Guo, Y . Wang, K. Ma, and Y . Zheng, “A macro-micro weakly-supervised framework for as-oct tissue segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, ...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via strong-weak dual-branch network,

    W. Luo and M. Yang, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via strong-weak dual-branch network,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Pro- ceedings, Part V 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 784–800

    2020

  38. [46]

    Deep learning based instance segmentation in 3d biomedical images using weak annotation,

    Z. Zhao, L. Yang, H. Zheng, I. H. Guldner, S. Zhang, and D. Z. Chen, “Deep learning based instance segmentation in 3d biomedical images using weak annotation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Sp...

    2018

  39. [47]

    Efficient graph-based image segmentation,

    P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, “Efficient graph-based image segmentation,” International journal of computer vision , vol. 59, pp. 167–181, 2004

    2004

  40. [48]

    Aquila-particle swarm based cooperative search optimizer with superpixel techniques for epithelial layer segmentation,

    B. Sasmal, A. Das, K. G. Dhal, and S. Ray, “Aquila-particle swarm based cooperative search optimizer with superpixel techniques for epithelial layer segmentation,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 149, p. 110947, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Chaotic fitness-dependent quasi-reflected aquila optimizer for superpixel based white blood cell segmentation,

    K. G. Dhal, R. Rai, A. Das, S. Ray, D. Ghosal, and R. Kanjilal, “Chaotic fitness-dependent quasi-reflected aquila optimizer for superpixel based white blood cell segmentation,” Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 35, no. 21, pp. 15 315–15 332, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Learning a classification model for segmentation,

    Ren and Malik, “Learning a classification model for segmentation,” in Proceedings ninth IEEE international conference on computer vision . IEEE, 2003, pp. 10–17

    2003

  43. [51]

    Superpixel image clustering using particle swarm optimizer for nucleus segmentation,

    S. Ray, K. G. Dhal, and P. K. Naskar, “Superpixel image clustering using particle swarm optimizer for nucleus segmentation,” in Soft Computing for Problem Solving: Proceedings of the SocProS 2022. Springer, 2023, pp. 445–457

    2022

  44. [52]

    A survey on the utilization of superpixel image for clustering based image segmentation,

    B. Sasmal and K. G. Dhal, “A survey on the utilization of superpixel image for clustering based image segmentation,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 82, no. 23, pp. 35 493–35 555, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Self- supervision with superpixels: Training few-shot medical image seg- mentation without annotation,

    C. Ouyang, C. Biffi, C. Chen, T. Kart, H. Qiu, and D. Rueckert, “Self- supervision with superpixels: Training few-shot medical image seg- mentation without annotation,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part X...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Separated contrastive learning for organ-at-risk and gross-tumor-volume segmen- tation with limited annotation,

    J. Wang, X. Li, Y . Han, J. Qin, L. Wang, and Z. Qichao, “Separated contrastive learning for organ-at-risk and gross-tumor-volume segmen- tation with limited annotation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 3, 2022, pp. 2459–2467

    2022

  47. [55]

    Pseudo-label refine- ment using superpixels for semi-supervised brain tumour segmentation,

    B. H. Thompson, G. Di Caterina, and J. P. V oisey, “Pseudo-label refine- ment using superpixels for semi-supervised brain tumour segmentation,” in 2022 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  48. [56]

    Superpixel-guided iterative learning from noisy labels for medical image segmentation,

    S. Li, Z. Gao, and X. He, “Superpixel-guided iterative learning from noisy labels for medical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Com- puting and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th Interna- tional Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Pr...

    2021

  49. [57]

    Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning,

    Y . Wang, H. Chen, Q. Heng, W. Hou, Y . Fan, Z. Wu, J. Wang, M. Sav- vides, T. Shinozaki, B. Raj et al., “Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07246 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?

    O. Bernard, A. Lalande, C. Zotti, F. Cervenansky, X. Yang, P.-A. Heng, I. Cetin, K. Lekadir, O. Camara, M. A. G. Ballester et al. , “Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?” IEEE transactions on med...

    2018

  51. [59]

    Weakly supervised seg- mentation with multiscale adversarial attention gates,

    G. Valvano, A. Leo, and S. A. Tsaftaris, “Weakly supervised seg- mentation with multiscale adversarial attention gates,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01152, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats),

    B. H. Menze, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, K. Farahani, J. Kirby, Y . Burren, N. Porz, J. Slotboom, R. Wiest et al. , “The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats),” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1993–2024, 2014

    1993

  53. [61]

    WSL4MIS,

    X. Luo, “WSL4MIS,” https://github.com/Luoxd1996/WSL4MIS, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Interpolation consistency training for semi-supervised learning,

    V . Verma, K. Kawaguchi, A. Lamb, J. Kannala, A. Solin, Y . Bengio, and D. Lopez-Paz, “Interpolation consistency training for semi-supervised learning,” Neural Networks, vol. 145, pp. 90–106, 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    On regularized losses for weakly-supervised cnn segmen- tation,

    M. Tang, F. Perazzi, A. Djelouah, I. Ben Ayed, C. Schroers, and Y . Boykov, “On regularized losses for weakly-supervised cnn segmen- tation,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 507–522

    2018

  57. [65]

    Slic superpixels compared to state-of-the-art,

    R. Achanta, A. Shaji, K. Smith, A. Lucchi, P. Fua, and S. S ¨usstrunk, “Slic superpixels compared to state-of-the-art,” Journal Of Latex Class Files, vol. 6, no. 1, 2011

    2011

  58. [66]

    Transferring and regularizing prediction for semantic segmentation,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Qiu, T. Yao, C.-W. Ngo, D. Liu, and T. Mei, “Transferring and regularizing prediction for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, 2020, pp. 9621–9630

    2020

  59. [67]

    Self- supervised learning for few-shot medical image segmentation,

    C. Ouyang, C. Biffi, C. Chen, T. Kart, H. Qiu, and D. Rueckert, “Self- supervised learning for few-shot medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1837–1848, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Supra: Superpixel guided loss for improved multi-modal segmentation in endoscopy,

    R. Mart ´ınez-Garc´ıa-Pe˜na, M. A. Teevno, G. Ochoa-Ruiz, and S. Ali, “Supra: Superpixel guided loss for improved multi-modal segmentation in endoscopy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 285–294

    2023

  61. [69]

    Multi-organ segmentation: a progressive exploration of learning paradigms under scarce annotation,

    S. Li, H. Wang, Y . Meng, C. Zhang, and Z. Song, “Multi-organ segmentation: a progressive exploration of learning paradigms under scarce annotation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03296 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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