Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Sli2Vol+: Segmenting 3D Medical Images Based on an Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 Sli2Vol+ segments whole 3D medical volumes from a single labeled slice.

desk verdict Solid incremental extension of Sli2Vol with real gains on sparse-annotation 3D segmentation; the cross-modal MRI result needs a patient-disjoint split before the generalizability claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13873 v1 pith:7HXHE24F submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV

Delin An , Pengfei Gu , Milan Sonka , Chaoli Wang , Danny Z. Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords self-supervisedlearningmedicalimagesegmentationmaskpropagationpseudo-labelsslicecorrespondence3Dsingle-sliceannotationaffinitymatrix
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

Sli2Vol+ is a self-supervised framework for segmenting 3D medical images using only a single annotated 2D slice per training and test volume. The paper argues that previous mask-propagation methods, which learn correspondences between neighboring slices by slice reconstruction, accumulate errors as they propagate and fail when anatomical structures appear or disappear between slices. To fix this, Sli2Vol+ first generates and refines pseudo-labels for training volumes, then trains a network to learn correspondences from both consecutive slices and these pseudo-labels, so the object estimates guide the correspondence learning. The authors report that this reduces error drift and handles discontinuities, outperforming existing propagation methods across nine public CT and MRI datasets and ten structures of interest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network (OEG-CFN), which learns an affinity matrix between a slice and its neighbor from two parallel feature streams: one computed from the two consecutive slices and one from their corresponding pseudo-labels, with the two ConvNets sharing weights. The affinity matrix is computed as in Sli2Vol, a local softmax over dot products between query and key features, and is used at test time to propagate a segmentation mask slice by slice. The pseudo-labels themselves are produced by first running Sli2Vol from the single annotated slice and then refining the resulting masks with a 3D segmentation network (UNETR++), so that the object estimates incorporate global 3D context. A second piece of machinery is the gradient-enhanced image generator (GEIG), which replaces Sli2Vol's edge-profile generator: it encodes each pixel by a softmax-normalized histogram of second-order derivatives at multiple directions and scales, making the reconstruction pre-text task less noise-sensitive and better at localizing edges.

What would settle it

Replace the refined pseudo-labels used to train OEG-CFN with random binary masks (preserving object-slice statistics) and rerun the CT experiments: if Dice does not drop substantially, the object-estimation guidance is not the source of the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that injecting object-level supervision in the form of pseudo-labels into the slice-correspondence learning process yields more reliable correspondences than learning purely from slice reconstruction, and that these correspondences transfer to test volumes where no pseudo-labels are available. The paper demonstrates that an Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network (OEG-CFN), which concatenates key and query features from slices with those from pseudo-labels before computing an affinity matrix, improves mask propagation over the Sli2Vol baseline by an average of 5.6 Dice points on CT and MRI datasets. The paper further claims that refining pseudo-labels with a 3D network and replacing Sli2Vol's edge-profile input with gradient-enhanced images (histograms of second-order derivatives) each add further gains, and that the full pipeline generalizes across organs, modalities, and datasets with only about a 7-point drop versus fully supervised same-domain models under domain shift.

Load-bearing premise

The refined pseudo-labels are accurate enough that training the correspondence network to imitate them teaches transferable correspondences, even though no pseudo-labels are available at test time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one annotated slice per training and test volume, Sli2Vol+ reports mean Dice of 78.9 across the CT organ suite and 54.1 across cross-modal brain-tumor MRI, exceeding Sli2Vol, Vol2Flow, and VoxelMorph on every dataset tested.
  • The pseudo-label guidance specifically reduces error accumulation: qualitative results show improved propagation at slices far from the labeled slice and at slices where an organ ends.
  • The annotation cost is low enough that the single training-volume slice can be generated automatically by an interactive or foundation segmentation tool (e.g., ScribblePrompt) with little loss in performance.
  • Across cross-domain and cross-modality evaluations, the method keeps performance within roughly 7 Dice points of same-domain fully supervised models, suggesting the learned correspondences generalize rather than memorize training volumes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported gains are driven by pseudo-label quality, then an experiment that corrupts the refined pseudo-labels (for example, by erasing random object regions) should degrade final segmentation in proportion to the corruption, a dependence the paper does not test directly.
  • The framework's reliance on a single annotated slice per training volume makes it a natural bootstrapping engine for new volumes: the same OEG-CFN could propagate a few human-corrected slices interactively, an application the paper mentions only in passing.
  • Because GEIG decouples the representation from raw intensities, the method may transfer more readily between MRI sequences or CT protocols than intensity-based reconstruction methods; a dedicated cross-protocol experiment with paired scans would settle this.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Sli2Vol+, a self-supervised framework for 3D medical image segmentation from a single annotated slice per training and testing volume. The method first generates pseudo-labels (PLs) for training volumes using Sli2Vol, refines them with UNETR++, and then trains an Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network (OEG-CFN) that learns slice-to-slice correspondences from both consecutive slices and PLs. A gradient-enhanced image generator (GEIG) is introduced as an information bottleneck for the slice reconstruction pretext task. At test time, the trained network propagates the single annotated slice to the rest of the volume. The authors report experiments on nine public datasets (CT and MRI) covering ten structures, with ablations showing incremental Dice improvements from each component, and comparisons against fully supervised, single-slice supervised, and mask propagation baselines.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper addresses a practically important problem: reducing the annotation burden for 3D medical segmentation. The evaluation is extensive (nine datasets, multiple organs, CT/MRI, cross-modal MRI), includes five-seed repetitions with standard deviations, and the code is publicly released. The ablation study is carefully structured and each proposed component (PLs, refinement, GEIG) yields a consistent improvement. The additional robustness experiment using ScribblePrompt-generated annotations (Table 5) is a strength. However, the central claim hinges on the reliability of the pseudo-labels and on the cross-modal MRI experiment, both of which currently lack crucial validation or specification.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Table 3] The cross-modal MRI experiment does not state whether the T1w training volumes and the FLAIR/T1gd/T2w test volumes come from disjoint patients. The Decathlon Brain Tumours dataset contains multi-modal acquisitions of the same patients, so a volume-level split without patient exclusion would place the same anatomy in both training and test sets, inflating the reported cross-modal Dice scores. The authors must specify the patient-level split; if it is not patient-disjoint, the experiment must be re-run with a strict patient-exclusion protocol.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 1] The inference procedure is under-specified. During training, OEG-CFN computes the affinity matrix from features of both the slices and the PLs, but at test time PLs are unavailable. The paper does not explain how the trained two-path network is adapted for test-time affinity computation (e.g., zero-filling the PL inputs, using only the slice path, or training a single-path variant). Without this information, the reported test-stage results cannot be reproduced or fully assessed.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (3)] The gradient-enhanced image generator depends on unspecified hyperparameters: d (number of directions) and s (number of scales), and the exact operational definitions of 'direction' and 'scale' are not provided. These values are not reported in §4.2 or elsewhere. The authors should give the concrete settings used in all experiments; otherwise the claimed benefit of GEIG cannot be independently evaluated.
  4. [§3.2] The quality of the pseudo-labels, which are the key supervisory signal of the framework, is never quantified. No Dice score or other metric is reported for the generated or refined PLs against ground truth on the training volumes (or a held-out subset). Since the method's improvement is attributed to 'object estimation guided' learning, the authors should provide PL quality statistics (e.g., mean Dice before and after UNETR++ refinement) to validate the underlying mechanism.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Throughout] The term 'modals' is used repeatedly; consider using 'modalities' or explicitly defining 'modals' as MRI sequences (e.g., T1w, T2w, FLAIR).
  2. [§5.1, point (2)] The claim that Sli2Vol+ and FS-SS use 'the same amount of annotations' is inaccurate because Sli2Vol+ additionally uses one annotated slice per training volume; revise the wording to reflect the actual annotation budgets.
  3. [Table 2] Add the number of training volumes for C4KC-KiTS, CT-LN, and CT-Pancreas to provide a complete picture of the annotation cost.
  4. [§4.3] The selection rule for the annotated slice is described only for test volumes ('±3 slices around the slice with the largest GT annotation'); specify how the single annotated slice per training volume is chosen.
  5. [§6] The conclusion claims the method segments 'any anatomical structures,' but experiments cover only ten structures; soften the generality claim.
  6. [§4.2] The statement 'batch size ... maximum size allowed by the GPU' is not reproducible; give a concrete value or a precise heuristic used to determine the batch size.
  7. [Table 5] Define the notation 'Sli2Vol+ (using ScribblePrompt)' in the caption or text, clarifying that only the training-volume slice annotations are produced by ScribblePrompt while test annotations remain manual.
  8. [Figure 2] The label 'GTV' in the top row is not defined in the text; explain its meaning or replace it with a clearer term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and all reported segmentation scores are evaluated against external ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) generate training pseudo-labels (PLs) by propagating the single annotated slice with Sli2Vol; (2) refine them with UNETR++; (3) train the Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network (OEG-CFN) on adjacent slices plus PLs; (4) at test time, use only the trained network and the given slice to propagate masks via Eq. (4). All reported Dice scores are computed against external ground-truth segmentations, not against the PLs used in training, so no reported prediction is defined as the fitted target. The PLs are indeed generated by the baseline method Sli2Vol, but the paper does not present Sli2Vol's output as the quantity to be predicted; PLs are an auxiliary training signal, and test-time inference explicitly states: 'Unlike in the training stage, no PLs of the slices are needed for computing the affinity matrix during the test stage' (Section 3.4). This is standard self-training rather than a derivation that reduces to its input by construction. The self-citations in the manuscript ([12,13,61,62,64,65]) appear in related work and motivation and are not load-bearing justifications for the correctness or uniqueness of the central result. The unspecified patient-level split in the cross-modal MRI experiment is a potential experimental-validity concern, but it is not a circularity concern and does not change the verdict under the rubric.

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

The method does not introduce new physical entities; it introduces a new network architecture (OEG-CFN) and a new input transform (GEIG), which are not 'invented entities' in the ledger sense. The main unchecked inputs are hyperparameters and the quality of the pseudo-label supervision.

free parameters (3)
  • GEIG scales and directions (d, s)
    The gradient-enhanced image generator in Eq. (3) computes second-order derivatives at d directions and s scales, but d and s are not reported. The representation the network sees depends on these choices.
  • Number of training epochs for OEG-CFN = 4
    Set to 4 for all experiments; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Learning rates and optimizers = 0.0001 (OEG-CFN), 0.01 (UNETR++)
    Standard hyperparameters, but their choice affects the reported Dice scores.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Slice reconstruction is a valid pretext task for learning anatomical correspondences.
    The whole method inherits Sli2Vol's assumption that reconstructing one slice from its neighbor produces useful correspondence features. If this assumption is false, the PLs and the trained OEG-CFN will not capture true anatomical motion.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-labels generated by Sli2Vol and refined by UNETR++ are reliable enough to supervise OEG-CFN.
    Section 3.2 uses PLs as training targets for the correspondence network; the paper never measures PL accuracy or its correlation with final Dice.
  • domain assumption The slice chosen for annotation is representative of the object.
    Section 4.3 selects one of ±3 slices around the largest GT slice; this gives an easier starting point than an arbitrary slice and is not tested otherwise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sli2Vol+: Segmenting 3D Medical Images Based on an Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HXHE24F

@misc{pith2026241113873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sli2Vol+: Segmenting 3D Medical Images Based on an Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HXHE24F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13873}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning (DL) methods have shown remarkable successes in medical image segmentation, often using large amounts of annotated data for model training. However, acquiring a large number of diverse labeled 3D medical image datasets is highly difficult and expensive. Recently, mask propagation DL methods were developed to reduce the annotation burden on 3D medical images. For example, Sli2Vol~\cite{yeung2021sli2vol} proposed a self-supervised framework (SSF) to learn correspondences by matching neighboring slices via slice reconstruction in the training stage; the learned correspondences were then used to propagate a labeled slice to other slices in the test stage. But, these methods are still prone to error accumulation due to the inter-slice propagation of reconstruction errors. Also, they do not handle discontinuities well, which can occur between consecutive slices in 3D images, as they emphasize exploiting object continuity. To address these challenges, in this work, we propose a new SSF, called \proposed, {for segmenting any anatomical structures in 3D medical images using only a single annotated slice per training and testing volume.} Specifically, in the training stage, we first propagate an annotated 2D slice of a training volume to the other slices, generating pseudo-labels (PLs). Then, we develop a novel Object Estimation Guided Correspondence Flow Network to learn reliable correspondences between consecutive slices and corresponding PLs in a self-supervised manner. In the test stage, such correspondences are utilized to propagate a single annotated slice to the other slices of a test volume. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method on various medical image segmentation tasks with different datasets, showing better generalizability across different organs, modalities, and modals. Code is available at \url{https://github.com/adlsn/Sli2Volplus}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pipeline of our proposed framework. (a) Training stage: Adjacent 2D slices and their corresponding generated pseudo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of segmentation results by different methods on the Decath-Liver (top) and Decath-Spleen (bottom) datasets [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of segmentation results by various segmen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of segmentation results generated by our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.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. Exploring Transfer Learning for Deep Learning Polyp Detection in Colonoscopy Images Using YOLOv8

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A YOLOv8n model pre-trained on a fruit and vegetable detection dataset achieved 95.1% F1 on polyp detection, outperforming COCO-pre-trained and scratch-trained models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deep belief network modeling for automatic liver seg- mentation

    Mubashir Ahmad, Danni Ai, Guiwang Xie, Syed Furqan Qadri, Hong Song, Yong Huang, Yongtian Wang, and Jian Yang. Deep belief network modeling for automatic liver seg- mentation. IEEE Access, 7:20585–20595, 2019. 5, 6

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    V oxelMorph: A learning frame- work for deformable medical image registration

    Guha Balakrishnan, Amy Zhao, Mert R Sabuncu, John Gut- tag, and Adrian V Dalca. V oxelMorph: A learning frame- work for deformable medical image registration. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 38(8):1788–1800, 2019. 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    V ol2Flow: Segment 3D volumes using a sequence of registration flows

    Adeleh Bitarafan, Mohammad Farid Azampour, Kian Bakhtari, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, Matthias Keicher, and Nassir Navab. V ol2Flow: Segment 3D volumes using a sequence of registration flows. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Inter- vention, pages 609–618, 2022. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    3D image segmentation with sparse annotation by self-training and internal registration

    Adeleh Bitarafan, Mahdi Nikdan, and Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah. 3D image segmentation with sparse annotation by self-training and internal registration. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(7):2665–2672, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Swin-UNet: UNet-like pure Transformer for medical image segmenta- tion

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-UNet: UNet-like pure Transformer for medical image segmenta- tion. In European Conference on Computer Vision Work- shops, pages 205–218, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A methodological approach to the classifica- tion of dermoscopy images

    M Emre Celebi, Hassan A Kingravi, Bakhtiyar Uddin, Hi- toshi Iyatomi, Y Alp Aslandogan, William V Stoecker, and Randy H Moss. A methodological approach to the classifica- tion of dermoscopy images. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 31(6):362–373, 2007. 1

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Weakly- supervised semantic segmentation via sub-category explo- ration

    Yu-Ting Chang, Qiaosong Wang, Wei-Chih Hung, Robinson Piramuthu, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Weakly- supervised semantic segmentation via sub-category explo- ration. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8988–8997, 2020. 1

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    TransUNet: Transformers make strong encoders for medi- cal image segmentation

    Jieneng Chen, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Xiangde Luo, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Le Lu, Alan L Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. TransUNet: Transformers make strong encoders for medi- cal image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306,

    arXiv

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Angelini, Yike Guo, and Wenjia Bai

    Chengliang Dai, Shuo Wang, Yuanhan Mo, Kaichen Zhou, Elsa D. Angelini, Yike Guo, and Wenjia Bai. Suggestive an- notation of brain tumour images with gradient-guided sam- pling. In International Conference on Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-assisted Intervention , volume...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Vessel-CAPTCHA: An efficient learning framework for vessel annotation and segmentation

    Vien Ngoc Dang, Francesco Galati, Rosa Cortese, Giuseppe Di Giacomo, Viola Marconetto, Prateek Mathur, Karim Lekadir, Marco Lorenzi, Ferran Prados, and Maria A Zulu- aga. Vessel-CAPTCHA: An efficient learning framework for vessel annotation and segmentation. Medical Image Anal...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Segment Any- thing Model (SAM) for digital pathology: Assess zero- shot segmentation on whole slide imaging

    Ruining Deng, Can Cui, Quan Liu, Tianyuan Yao, Lucas W Remedios, Shunxing Bao, Bennett A Landman, Lee E Whe- less, Lori A Coburn, Keith T Wilson, et al. Segment Any- thing Model (SAM) for digital pathology: Assess zero- shot segmentation on whole slide imaging. arXiv preprint ...

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    ConvFormer: Combining CNN and Transformer for medical image segmentation

    Pengfei Gu, Yejia Zhang, Chaoli Wang, and Danny Z Chen. ConvFormer: Combining CNN and Transformer for medical image segmentation. In IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, pages 1–5, 2023. 1

    2023

  5. [13]

    kCBAC-Net: Deeply supervised complete bipartite networks with asymmetric convolutions for medical image segmentation

    Pengfei Gu, Hao Zheng, Yizhe Zhang, Chaoli Wang, and Danny Z Chen. kCBAC-Net: Deeply supervised complete bipartite networks with asymmetric convolutions for medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention ...

    2021

  6. [14]

    UNETR: Transformers for 3D medi- cal image segmentation

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Yucheng Tang, Vishwesh Nath, Dong Yang, Andriy Myronenko, Bennett Landman, Holger R Roth, and Daguang Xu. UNETR: Transformers for 3D medi- cal image segmentation. In IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1748–1758, 2022. 1, 4

    2022

  7. [15]

    Accuracy of Segment-Anything Model (SAM) in medical image segmentation tasks

    Sheng He, Rina Bao, Jingpeng Li, P Ellen Grant, and Yangming Ou. Accuracy of Segment-Anything Model (SAM) in medical image segmentation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09324, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C4kc kits challenge kidney tumor segmentation dataset,

    Nicholas Heller, Niranjan Sathianathen, Arveen Kalapara, et al. C4kc kits challenge kidney tumor segmentation dataset,

  9. [17]

    When SAM meets medical im- ages: An investigation of Segment Anything Model (SAM) on multi-phase liver tumor segmentation

    Chuanfei Hu and Xinde Li. When SAM meets medical im- ages: An investigation of Segment Anything Model (SAM) on multi-phase liver tumor segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08506, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Weakly-supervised semantic segmentation network with deep seeded region growing

    Zilong Huang, Xinggang Wang, Jiasi Wang, Wenyu Liu, and Jingdong Wang. Weakly-supervised semantic segmentation network with deep seeded region growing. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7014–7023, 2018. 1

    2018

  11. [19]

    Raman, Demetri Ter- zopoulos, and Kyunghyun Sung

    Alex Ling Yu Hung, Haoxin Zheng, Kai Zhao, Xiaoxi Du, Kaifeng Pang, Qi Miao, Steven S. Raman, Demetri Ter- zopoulos, and Kyunghyun Sung. CSAM: A 2.5D Cross-Slice attention module for anisotropic volumetric medical image segmentation. In IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cat...

    2024

  12. [20]

    nnU-Net: A self- configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical im- age segmentation

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon AA Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier-Hein. nnU-Net: A self- configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical im- age segmentation. Nature Methods, 18(2):203–211, 2021. 1, 5, 6

    2021

  13. [21]

    Convolution-free medical image segmentation using Transformers

    Davood Karimi, Serge Didenko Vasylechko, and Ali Gholipour. Convolution-free medical image segmentation using Transformers. In International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 78–88, 2021. 1

    2021

  14. [22]

    CHAOS challenge-combined (CT-MR) healthy abdominal organ segmentation

    A Emre Kavur, N Sinem Gezer, Mustafa Barıs ¸, Sinem Aslan, Pierre-Henri Conze, Vladimir Groza, Duc Duy Pham, Soumick Chatterjee, Philipp Ernst, Savas ¸ ¨Ozkan, et al. CHAOS challenge-combined (CT-MR) healthy abdominal organ segmentation. Medical Image Analysis , 69:101950,

  15. [23]

    Emre Kavur, N

    A. Emre Kavur, N. Sinem Gezer, Mustafa Barıs ¸, et al. CHAOS Challenge - Combined (CT-MR) Healthy Abdom- inal Organ Segmentation, Jan. 2020. 5, 6

    2020

  16. [24]

    Simple does it: Weakly supervised instance and semantic segmentation

    Anna Khoreva, Rodrigo Benenson, Jan Hendrik Hosang, Matthias Hein, and Bernt Schiele. Simple does it: Weakly supervised instance and semantic segmentation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1665–1674, 2017. 1

    2017

  17. [25]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643, 2023. 1, 6, 8

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alexander Kolesnikov and Christoph H. Lampert. Seed, ex- pand and constrain: Three principles for weakly-supervised image segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, volume 9908, pages 695–711, 2016. 1

    2016

  19. [27]

    Weiss, and Wei Shao

    Amarjeet Kumar, Hongxu Jiang, Muhammad Imran, Cyndi Valdes, Gabriela Leon, Dahyun Kang, Parvathi Nataraj, Yuyin Zhou, Michael D. Weiss, and Wei Shao. A flexi- ble 2.5D medical image segmentation approach with In-Slice and Cross-Slice attention. arXiv:2405.00130, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    PLN: Parasitic-like network for barely supervised medical image segmentation

    Shumeng Li, Heng Cai, Lei Qi, Qian Yu, Yinghuan Shi, and Yang Gao. PLN: Parasitic-like network for barely supervised medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2022. 2

    2022

  21. [29]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 5

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Segment anything in medical images

    Jun Ma and Bo Wang. Segment anything in medical images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12306, 2023. 1, 6, 8

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Segment Anything Model for medical image analysis: An experimental study

    Maciej A Mazurowski, Haoyu Dong, Hanxue Gu, Jichen Yang, Nicholas Konz, and Yixin Zhang. Segment Anything Model for medical image analysis: An experimental study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10517, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    SAM vs BET: A comparative study for brain extraction and segmentation of magnetic resonance images using deep learning

    Sovesh Mohapatra, Advait Gosai, and Gottfried Schlaug. SAM vs BET: A comparative study for brain extraction and segmentation of magnetic resonance images using deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04738, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Atten- tion U-Net: Learning where to look for the pancreas

    Ozan Oktay, Jo Schlemper, Loic Le Folgoc, Matthew Lee, Mattias Heinrich, Kazunari Misawa, Kensaku Mori, Steven McDonagh, Nils Y Hammerla, Bernhard Kainz, et al. Atten- tion U-Net: Learning where to look for the pancreas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018. 1

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Semi-supervised and self-supervised collaborative learning for prostate 3D MR image segmentation

    Yousuf Babiker M Osman, Cheng Li, Weijian Huang, Nazik Elsayed, Zhenzhen Xue, Hairong Zheng, and Shanshan Wang. Semi-supervised and self-supervised collaborative learning for prostate 3D MR image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08840, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Interactive whole-heart segmentation in congenital heart disease

    Danielle F Pace, Adrian V Dalca, Tal Geva, Andrew J Pow- ell, Mehdi H Moghari, and Polina Golland. Interactive whole-heart segmentation in congenital heart disease. In In- ternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention, pages 80–88, 2015. 1

    2015

  28. [36]

    Murphy, and Alan L

    George Papandreou, Liang-Chieh Chen, Kevin P. Murphy, and Alan L. Yuille. Weakly-and semi-supervised learning of a deep convolutional network for semantic image segmenta- tion. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1742–1750, 2015. 1

    2015

  29. [37]

    Riedlinger, Subhajyoti De, Shaoting Zhang, and Dimitris N

    Hui Qu, Pengxiang Wu, Qiaoying Huang, Jingru Yi, Zhen- nan Yan, Kang Li, Gregory M. Riedlinger, Subhajyoti De, Shaoting Zhang, and Dimitris N. Metaxas. Weakly super- vised deep nuclei segmentation using partial points annota- tion in histopathology images. IEEE Transactions on...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Girshick, Georgia Gkioxari, and Kaiming He

    Ilija Radosavovic, Piotr Doll ´ar, Ross B. Girshick, Georgia Gkioxari, and Kaiming He. Data distillation: Towards omni- supervised learning. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4119–4128, 2018. 1

    2018

  31. [39]

    U- Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In International Conference on Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-Assisted Intervention , volume 9351, pages 234–241, 2015. 1

    2015

  32. [40]

    Turkbey, Le Lu, Ji- amin Liu, and Ronald M

    Holger Roth, Amal Farag, Evrim B. Turkbey, Le Lu, Ji- amin Liu, and Ronald M. Summers. Data from pancreas-CT,

  33. [41]

    Holger Roth, Le Lu, Ari Seff, Kevin M Cherry, Joanne Hoffman, Shijun Wang, Jiamin Liu, Evrim Turkbey, and Ronald M. Summers. A new 2.5 D representation for lymph node detection in CT, 2015. 5

    2015

  34. [42]

    SAM.MD: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the Segment Anything Model

    Saikat Roy, Tassilo Wald, Gregor Koehler, Maximilian R Rokuss, Nico Disch, Julius Holzschuh, David Zimmerer, and Klaus H Maier-Hein. SAM.MD: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the Segment Anything Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05396, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    UNETR++: Delving into efficient and accurate 3D medi- cal image segmentation

    Abdelrahman Shaker, Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. UNETR++: Delving into efficient and accurate 3D medi- cal image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04497,

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    An active learning approach for reduc- ing annotation cost in skin lesion analysis

    Xueying Shi, Qi Dou, Cheng Xue, Jing Qin, Hao Chen, and Pheng-Ann Heng. An active learning approach for reduc- ing annotation cost in skin lesion analysis. In International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, volume 11861, pages 628–636, 2019. 2

    2019

  37. [45]

    A large annotated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms

    Amber L Simpson, Michela Antonelli, Spyridon Bakas, et al. A large annotated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09063, 2019. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

    1902 arXiv

  38. [46]

    3D image reconstruction for comparison of algorithm database: A patient specific anatomical and medical image database

    L Soler, A Hostettler, V Agnus, A Charnoz, J Fasquel, J Moreau, A Osswald, M Bouhadjar, and J Marescaux. 3D image reconstruction for comparison of algorithm database: A patient specific anatomical and medical image database. IRCAD, Strasbourg, France, Tech. Rep, 2010. 5

    2010

  39. [47]

    Box-driven class-wise region masking and filling rate guided loss for weakly supervised semantic segmentation

    Chunfeng Song, Yan Huang, Wanli Ouyang, and Liang Wang. Box-driven class-wise region masking and filling rate guided loss for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3136–3145, 2019. 1

    2019

  40. [48]

    Revisiting Rubik’s cube: Self-supervised learning with volume-wise transformation for 3D medical image seg- mentation

    Xing Tao, Yuexiang Li, Wenhui Zhou, Kai Ma, and Yefeng Zheng. Revisiting Rubik’s cube: Self-supervised learning with volume-wise transformation for 3D medical image seg- mentation. In International Conference on Medical Im- age Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention, vol...

    2020

  41. [49]

    A multiple layer U-Net, U n-Net, for liver and liver tumor seg- mentation in CT

    Song-Toan Tran, Ching-Hwa Cheng, and Don-Gey Liu. A multiple layer U-Net, U n-Net, for liver and liver tumor seg- mentation in CT. IEEE Access, 2020. 5, 6

    2020

  42. [50]

    3D segmentation in the clinic: A grand challenge

    Bram Van Ginneken, Tobias Heimann, and Martin Styner. 3D segmentation in the clinic: A grand challenge. In In- ternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention Workshop on 3D Segmenta- tion in the Clinic: A Grand Challenge , volume 1, pages ...

    2007

  43. [51]

    Zuluaga, Rosalind Pratt, Premal A

    Guotai Wang, Wenqi Li, Maria A. Zuluaga, Rosalind Pratt, Premal A. Patel, Michael Aertsen, Tom Doel, Anna L. David, Jan Deprest, S ´ebastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren. In- teractive medical image segmentation using deep learning with image-specific fine tuning. IEEE Transa...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Annotation-efficient deep learn- ing for automatic medical image segmentation.Nature Com- munications, 12(1):1–13, 2021

    Shanshan Wang, Cheng Li, Rongpin Wang, Zaiyi Liu, Meiyun Wang, Hongna Tan, Yaping Wu, Xinfeng Liu, Hui Sun, Rui Yang, Xin Liu, Jie Chen, Huihui Zhou, Ismail Ben Ayed, and Hairong Zheng. Annotation-efficient deep learn- ing for automatic medical image segmentation.Nature Com- m...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Wong, Marianne Rakic, John Guttag, and Adrian V

    Hallee E. Wong, Marianne Rakic, John Guttag, and Adrian V . Dalca. ScribblePrompt: Fast and flexi- ble interactive segmentation for any biomedical image. arXiv:2312.07381, 2024. 6, 8

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Self-learning and one-shot learning based single- slice annotation for 3D medical image segmentation

    Yixuan Wu, Bo Zheng, Jintai Chen, Danny Z Chen, and Jian Wu. Self-learning and one-shot learning based single- slice annotation for 3D medical image segmentation. In In- ternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 244–254, 2022. 2

    2022

  47. [55]

    CoTr: Efficiently bridging CNN and Transformer for 3D medical image segmentation

    Yutong Xie, Jianpeng Zhang, Chunhua Shen, and Yong Xia. CoTr: Efficiently bridging CNN and Transformer for 3D medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Inter- vention, pages 171–180, 2021. 4

    2021

  48. [56]

    CAMEL: A weakly supervised learning framework for histopathology image segmentation

    Gang Xu, Zhigang Song, Zhuo Sun, Calvin Ku, Zhe Yang, Cancheng Liu, Shuhao Wang, Jianpeng Ma, and Wei Xu. CAMEL: A weakly supervised learning framework for histopathology image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 106...

    2019

  49. [57]

    Weakly supervised histopathology cancer im- age segmentation and classification

    Yan Xu, Jun-Yan Zhu, I Eric, Chao Chang, Maode Lai, and Zhuowen Tu. Weakly supervised histopathology cancer im- age segmentation and classification. Medical Image Analy- sis, 18(3):591–604, 2014. 1

    2014

  50. [58]

    Lin Yang, Yizhe Zhang, Jianxu Chen, Siyuan Zhang, and Danny Z. Chen. Suggestive annotation: A deep active learn- ing framework for biomedical image segmentation. In In- ternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention, volume 10435, pages 39...

    2017

  51. [59]

    Sli2V ol: Annotate a 3D volume from a single slice with self- supervised learning

    Pak-Hei Yeung, Ana IL Namburete, and Weidi Xie. Sli2V ol: Annotate a 3D volume from a single slice with self- supervised learning. In International Conference on Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention , pages 69–79, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2021

  52. [60]

    Interactive medical image segmentation via a point-based interaction

    Jian Zhang, Yinghuan Shi, Jinquan Sun, Lei Wang, Luping Zhou, Yang Gao, and Dinggang Shen. Interactive medical image segmentation via a point-based interaction. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 111:101998, 2021. 1

    2021

  53. [61]

    A point in the right di- rection: Vector prediction for spatially-aware self-supervised volumetric representation learning

    Yejia Zhang, Pengfei Gu, Nishchal Sapkota, Hao Zheng, Peixian Liang, and Danny Z Chen. A point in the right di- rection: Vector prediction for spatially-aware self-supervised volumetric representation learning. In IEEE 20th Interna- tional Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, page...

    2023

  54. [62]

    Keep your friends close & enemies farther: Debiasing contrastive learning with spatial priors in 3D radiology images

    Yejia Zhang, Nishchal Sapkota, Pengfei Gu, Yaopeng Peng, Hao Zheng, and Danny Z Chen. Keep your friends close & enemies farther: Debiasing contrastive learning with spatial priors in 3D radiology images. In IEEE International Con- ference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine , pa...

    2022

  55. [63]

    Hughes, and Danny Z

    Yizhe Zhang, Lin Yang, Jianxu Chen, Maridel Fredericksen, David P. Hughes, and Danny Z. Chen. Deep adversarial net- works for biomedical image segmentation utilizing unanno- tated images. In International Conference on Medical Im- age Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventi...

    2017

  56. [64]

    Hao Zheng, Lin Yang, Jianxu Chen, Jun Han, Yizhe Zhang, Peixian Liang, Zhuo Zhao, Chaoli Wang, and Danny Z. Chen. Biomedical image segmentation via representative an- notation. In The 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 5901–5908, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  57. [65]

    Hao Zheng, Yizhe Zhang, Lin Yang, Chaoli Wang, and Danny Z. Chen. An annotation sparsification strategy for 3D medical image segmentation via representative selection and self-training. In The 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 6925–6932, 2020. 2

    2020

  58. [66]

    nnFormer: Interleaved Transformer for volumetric segmentation

    Hong-Yu Zhou, Jiansen Guo, Yinghao Zhang, Lequan Yu, Liansheng Wang, and Yizhou Yu. nnFormer: Interleaved Transformer for volumetric segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03201, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Can SAM segment polyps? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07583, 2023

    Tao Zhou, Yizhe Zhang, Yi Zhou, Ye Wu, and Chen Gong. Can SAM segment polyps? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07583, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Fishman, and Alan L

    Yuyin Zhou, Yan Wang, Peng Tang, Song Bai, Wei Shen, El- liot K. Fishman, and Alan L. Yuille. Semi-supervised multi- organ segmentation via deep multi-planar co-training. In IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vi- sion, pages 121–140, 2019. 1

    2019

  61. [69]

    UNet++: A nested U-Net architecture for medical image segmentation

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. UNet++: A nested U-Net architecture for medical image segmentation. InDeep Learn- ing in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, volume 11045, pages 3–11, 2018. 1

    2018

  62. [70]

    Gotway, and Jianming Liang

    Zongwei Zhou, Vatsal Sodha, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Sid- diquee, Ruibin Feng, Nima Tajbakhsh, Michael B. Gotway, and Jianming Liang. Models genesis: Generic autodidac- tic models for 3D medical image analysis. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- ass...

    2019

Pith tools

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