Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 26 references

A Semi-Supervised Approach with Error Reflection for Echocardiography Segmentation

T0 review · 4 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 A model that rebuilds the ultrasound image from its own mask, and uses the mismatch as a map of where it is wrong, improves semi-supervised echocardiography segmentation at 1% and 5% labels on two datasets.

desk verdict Novel error-reflection mechanism for semi-supervised echo segmentation, but the core premise is unvalidated and the gains are small single-run numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00715 v1 pith:V7M7LQFZ submitted 2024-12-01 eess.IV cs.CV

Xiaoxiang Han , Yiman Liu , Jiang Shang , Qingli Li , Jiangang Chen , Menghan Hu , Qi Zhang , Yuqi Zhang
show 1 more author
Yan Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedlearningechocardiographysegmentationimagepseudo-labelgenerationmeanteachererrorreflectionmulti-scalemixingupultrasoundnoise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that semi-supervised echocardiography segmentation can be made robust to the modality's poor contrast, blurred edges, and noise by forcing the model to reflect on its own mistakes. The key idea is an error reflection loop: the student network must rebuild a plausible ultrasound image from its own segmentation mask plus edge sketches, and any mismatch between the rebuilt image and the real image is read as a sign of wrong segmentation. Those error maps separate each unlabeled image into reliable and unreliable regions, and confident teacher predictions are then used to guide weak student predictions near decision boundaries. A multi-scale mixing-up augmentation, which swaps variable-sized puzzle patches between labeled and unlabeled images, closes the distribution gap and exposes the model to cardiac structures at different scales. On the CAMUS public dataset and a private clinical dataset, the reported Dice, Jaccard, 95% Hausdorff distance, and average surface distance all improve over six prior semi-supervised methods at both 1% and 5% label ratios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the error reflection strategy, which has two steps. In reconstruction reflection, a Canny edge sketch of the unlabeled image is fused with a dilated Canny sketch of the teacher pseudo-label and fed to the student, which must produce a proxy image; SSIM against the original quantifies how faithful the segmentation is. In guidance correction, the absolute normalized difference between proxy and original forms a pixel-wise error map, a dynamic threshold of half its maximum marks unreliable regions, and within those regions the teacher's more confident probabilities are detached and used as L2 targets for the student's less confident probabilities. The second mechanism is the multi-scale mixing-up strategy, which partitions labeled and unlabeled images into puzzle patches with N randomly 2 or 3, mixes patches while preserving positions, and supervises the mixed predictions with mixed ground-truth and pseudo-labels.

What would settle it

Compute, on the labeled validation split, the pixel-wise correlation between the reconstruction error map and the actual segmentation error map (prediction versus ground truth); if the correlation is near zero or negative, the central mechanism fails. A complementary direct test is to replace the Canny sketch with a noise sketch and check whether the guidance correction still gives the reported gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that reconstruction error is a usable proxy for segmentation error in ultrasound, and that exploiting it as a training signal improves pseudo-label quality enough to beat existing semi-supervised segmentation methods under extreme label scarcity. Concretely, the teacher produces pseudo-labels; the student is asked to reconstruct the original unlabeled image from the pseudo-label mask's dilated Canny sketch merged with the image's Canny sketch, supervised by SSIM. Where the reconstruction deviates from the original, the prediction is deemed unreliable, and the method takes the more confident teacher regions to guide the low-confidence student regions with L2 loss while detaching gradients on the confident side. With a random choice of 2x2 or 3x3 puzzle-patch mixing, the full method reports the best Dice (88.28 at 1% and 89.63 at 5% on CAMUS; 71.75 and 77.90 on the private set), best Jaccard, best 95HD, and best ASD among the compared methods, all without modifying the U-Net backbone.

Load-bearing premise

The whole correction loop depends on the assumption that the places where the rebuilt image differs from the real ultrasound are the places where the segmentation is wrong; if ultrasound speckle noise or the absence of texture inside the mask makes the error map point at the wrong pixels, the guidance correction step will misweight regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported gains at 1% labeling suggest clinically usable segmentation can be trained from a handful of labeled patients plus unlabeled scans.
  • Because the method leaves the U-Net backbone unchanged, the error reflection loop can be added to other Mean-Teacher-style semi-supervised pipelines.
  • The multi-scale mixing-up augmentation is a general plug-in: its puzzle-patch construction can be applied to other medical imaging modalities with labeled and unlabeled distribution mismatch.
  • If the mechanism works as described, high-quality pseudo-labels are obtainable precisely in the low-contrast, noisy regime where confidence-based filtering tends to fail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Pith inference: the paper does not directly validate that per-pixel reconstruction error equals per-pixel segmentation error; a reader should treat that correlation as an open empirical question that could be tested on the labeled portion of CAMUS.
  • Pith inference: if reconstruction error tracks segmentation error, the same loop could be applied to video echocardiography, where temporal consistency in reconstruction may provide even stronger error signals than single frames.
  • Pith inference: the dynamic threshold of half the maximum error is a simplification; a learned or statistically calibrated threshold might yield sharper reliable and unreliable maps, a natural ablation the paper leaves implicit.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a semi-supervised segmentation method for echocardiography built on a Mean Teacher architecture. The main contribution is an 'error reflection' strategy in two steps: in the reconstruction reflection step, the student network reconstructs a proxy image from the pseudo-label mask and Canny edge sketches of the unlabeled image, and the reconstruction error map is used to identify unreliable regions; in the guidance correction step, those unreliable regions are supervised using more confident teacher predictions. A second contribution is a multi-scale mixing-up data augmentation that mixes labeled and unlabeled images partitioned into variable-size puzzle patches. The method is evaluated on the public CAMUS dataset and a private clinical dataset at 1% and 5% labeled ratios, reporting improvements in Dice, Jaccard, 95HD, and ASD over several semi-supervised baselines, with ablations supporting the proposed components.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, this is a useful empirical contribution to semi-supervised echocardiography segmentation: the method is simple, does not modify the U-Net backbone, and achieves the best reported metrics on both datasets at 1% and 5% labeled ratios, with ablations showing each component contributes. The error-reflection idea is novel and intuitive. However, the central mechanism is asserted rather than empirically validated, and the statistical evidence is thin with no error bars or significance tests. The private dataset is not available, so independent verification is limited. Overall, the paper has a defensible core but requires additional evidence to support its main claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-A1 and Eqs. (4)-(5)] The load-bearing premise of the error reflection strategy is that reconstruction error localizes pseudo-label errors. The paper states in Section II-A1 that 'If the segmentation is accurate, the reconstructed proxy shall exhibit a high degree of similarity to the original image,' but it never directly validates that per-pixel reconstruction error correlates with per-pixel pseudo-label error. This is especially concerning because the reconstruction input includes the Canny edge map of the original unlabeled image (Eq. 2), so the proxy can reproduce true boundaries regardless of whether the pseudo-label boundary is correct. Consequently, the error map M_err computed in Eq. (4) may primarily reflect edge density and noise rather than segmentation mistakes, causing the guidance correction step in Eq. (8) to misweight or mislocate the regions it corrects. Please provide direct evidence, for example by computing the correlation between M_err and the pseudo-label error map on a held-out labeled subset, or by visualizing cases where high M_err regions coincide with wrong pseudo-labels. The current ablation (All-AS, Table IV) shows only that the auxiliary sketch helps overall Dice, not that the error map marks wrong labels.
  2. [Tables I and II] The empirical results are reported without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, despite the paper stating that five-fold cross-validation was used. The margins over the strongest baselines are small: about 1.0 Dice point on CAMUS 1% (88.28 vs. 87.26 for BCP) and about 1.3 Dice points on the private 1% split (71.75 vs. 70.43 for BCP). Given the small margins and the use of five folds, the authors should report per-fold results or standard deviations, and ideally perform a paired statistical test across folds. Without this, the central claim of outperforming existing methods is not supported at the reported precision.
  3. [Table II, U-Net 676(All) row] The fully supervised U-Net trained on all labeled private data reports a 95HD of 75.97, which is far worse than U-Net with 1% labeled data (62.88) and worse than most semi-supervised methods at 1% labeled data. This is implausible as reported and suggests either a typo (possibly 7.597?) or a methodological issue in how 95HD is computed for the multi-class private dataset. Please clarify or correct this value, and discuss why the fully supervised model has such a high 95HD. As it stands, this result undermines confidence in the reliability of the private-dataset evaluation.
  4. [Eq. (5) and Tables III-IV] The dynamic error threshold in Eq. (5), f_max(M_err)/2, is an arbitrary choice. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis for this threshold, nor for the loss weights alpha and beta (set to 0.01 in Section III-A3). The ablations in Tables III and IV demonstrate that removing components changes the final Dice, but they do not isolate whether the error-reflection step behaves as intended. For example, the improvement from the auxiliary sketch (All vs. All-AS) could come from the sketch improving the reconstruction loss signal rather than from the error map identifying unreliable pseudo-labels. A direct diagnostic of the error map, as requested in the first major comment, would also help justify this design choice.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (1)] There is a typo: 'fargmax(Ft(Xu; Θt)))' has an extra closing parenthesis. Please correct to 'fargmax(Ft(Xu; Θt))'.
  2. [Section II-A2] The terminology is confusing: P_t,mc is described as 'more confident prediction regions' but is defined as P_t,ur ⊙ M_g, which is a subset of the unreliable regions. Please clarify how these regions are meant to be interpreted and why they are called 'more confident'.
  3. [Tables I and II] Please clarify the data split at the patient level: how many images per patient are used, and is it ensured that the labeled and unlabeled sets contain disjoint patients? The unit in the tables is 'patients,' but the CAMUS dataset has 3000 images from 500 patients, so the correspondence between patients and images should be stated.
  4. [Section III-A3] Please specify how N is randomly set to 2 or 3 (e.g., uniform per mini-batch) and whether this random choice is independent across training iterations and cross-validation folds.
  5. [Table III] The column header 'L' is used for both the labeled-data ratio and the ablation indicator 'L' in the table body. Please rename to avoid ambiguity, for example 'Labeled ratio' and 'MMS'.
  6. [Section III-B] The phrase 'under the condition of extremely limited labeled images (1%)' is used twice in the same paragraph, once for the CAMUS results and once for the private dataset. Consider rephrasing for clarity.
  7. [Fig. 3] The figure caption does not indicate which echocardiographic view is shown for the private dataset cases, which would help readers interpret the qualitative improvements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claim is an empirical benchmark comparison, not a derivation that assumes its own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison against external baselines on the CAMUS public dataset and a private clinical dataset, measured with Dice, Jaccard, 95HD, and ASD. These metrics are computed against ground-truth annotations that are independent of the method's internal error-reflection mechanism, so the reported gains are not forced by construction. The only candidate for circularity is the error-reflection premise in Section II-A1, which asserts that an accurate segmentation yields a reconstructed proxy similar to the original image and that deficiencies in the proxy indicate segmentation inaccuracies. This premise is load-bearing for the guidance-correction step, but it is an empirical assumption about the correlation between reconstruction error and pseudo-label error, not a definitional identity: the paper never defines segmentation accuracy in terms of reconstruction similarity, and it validates the method through externally measured Dice and surface-distance metrics. The unreliable-region map Mur is literally defined as a thresholded reconstruction-error map, but the claim that this map corresponds to unreliable segmentations is a testable hypothesis, not a tautology. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the hyperparameters alpha and beta are fixed small values, and the method is compared rather than predicted from its own fitted values. Self-citation is minimal and not load-bearing: reference [12] is co-authored by several of the present authors but is cited only as general deep-learning context in the introduction, not as the basis of the reconstruction-reflection or guidance-correction mechanism. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no established result is merely renamed. The ablation studies, including removal of the auxiliary sketch and each error-reflection step, provide sensitivity evidence, though they do not directly validate the claimed per-pixel correlation between reconstruction error and pseudo-label error. That gap is a correctness and validity risk, not a circularity, because the final evaluation depends on independent ground truth rather than on the error map itself.

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

The method adds two loss terms and an augmentation to a U-Net Mean Teacher pipeline. The listed hyperparameters are chosen by hand, and the core reliability assumption (reconstruction error equals segmentation error) is a domain assumption without independent validation. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weights alpha and beta = 0.01 for both
    Set by hand in Section III-A3 without sensitivity analysis; used in Lall = (La + Lb)/2 + alpha*Lrec + beta*Lg.
  • Puzzle patch grid size N = Randomly 2 or 3
    Chosen after ablations in Table V; N=4 degrades performance, indicating the choice influences the reported gains.
  • Dynamic error threshold factor = fmax(Merr)/2
    Equation (5) fixes the unreliable-region threshold at half the maximum reconstruction error; this is a hand-chosen heuristic with no sensitivity analysis.
  • EMA decay lambda = Not reported
    The EMA update in Eq. (12) requires lambda, but its value is not stated in the implementation details, leaving replication underdetermined.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Canny edge extraction and dilation of pseudo-label masks produce a sketch that, together with image edges, is sufficient for the student network to reconstruct a proxy image.
    Used in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) of Section II-A1; if this fails, reconstruction error is not informative about segmentation quality.
  • domain assumption Reconstruction error (SSIM mismatch) correlates with per-pixel pseudo-label errors.
    Section II-A1 states that accurate segmentation leads to high similarity; this correlation is not measured or validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption The teacher's high-confidence predictions in unreliable regions are reliable guides for student optimization.
    Section II-A2 constructs mask Mg where teacher probability exceeds student probability and optimizes the student toward detached teacher values.
  • domain assumption Labeled and unlabeled images share a common distribution, so mixing augmented labeled and unlabeled patches is beneficial.
    Section II-B assumes multi-scale patch mixing reduces the empirical distribution gap; no quantitative distribution analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Semi-Supervised Approach with Error Reflection for Echocardiography Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7M7LQFZ

@misc{pith2026241200715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Semi-Supervised Approach with Error Reflection for Echocardiography Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7M7LQFZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00715}
}
read the original abstract

Segmenting internal structure from echocardiography is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of various heart diseases. Semi-supervised learning shows its ability in alleviating annotations scarcity. While existing semi-supervised methods have been successful in image segmentation across various medical imaging modalities, few have attempted to design methods specifically addressing the challenges posed by the poor contrast, blurred edge details and noise of echocardiography. These characteristics pose challenges to the generation of high-quality pseudo-labels in semi-supervised segmentation based on Mean Teacher. Inspired by human reflection on erroneous practices, we devise an error reflection strategy for echocardiography semi-supervised segmentation architecture. The process triggers the model to reflect on inaccuracies in unlabeled image segmentation, thereby enhancing the robustness of pseudo-label generation. Specifically, the strategy is divided into two steps. The first step is called reconstruction reflection. The network is tasked with reconstructing authentic proxy images from the semantic masks of unlabeled images and their auxiliary sketches, while maximizing the structural similarity between the original inputs and the proxies. The second step is called guidance correction. Reconstruction error maps decouple unreliable segmentation regions. Then, reliable data that are more likely to occur near high-density areas are leveraged to guide the optimization of unreliable data potentially located around decision boundaries. Additionally, we introduce an effective data augmentation strategy, termed as multi-scale mixing up strategy, to minimize the empirical distribution gap between labeled and unlabeled images and perceive diverse scales of cardiac anatomical structures. Extensive experiments demonstrate the competitiveness of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between echocardiography and cardiac MRI. (a) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of the proposed approach. (a) Error reflection strategy, including the reconstruction reflection step and the guidance correction step. l [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization results of comparative experiments between our method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualizing the quality of pseudo-label generation under varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, September 11-13, 2017, Proc...

    2017

  2. [2]

    Bidirectional copy-paste for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Bai, D. Chen, Q. Li, W. Shen, and Y . Wang, “Bidirectional copy-paste for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 11 514–11 524

    2023

  3. [3]

    Decoupled consistency for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    F. Chen, J. Fei, Y . Chen, and C. Huang, “Decoupled consistency for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in International Confer- ence on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention . Springer, 2023, pp. 551–561

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation,

    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 for medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Complexmix: Semi- supervised semantic segmentation via mask-based data augmentation,

    Y . Chen, X. Ouyang, K. Zhu, and G. Agam, “Complexmix: Semi- supervised semantic segmentation via mask-based data augmentation,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 2264–2268

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Semi- supervised semantic segmentation needs strong, varied perturbations,

    G. French, S. Laine, T. Aila, M. Mackiewicz, and G. Finlayson, “Semi- supervised semantic segmentation needs strong, varied perturbations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01916 , 2019

    arXiv 1906

  7. [7]

    An improved contrastive learning network for semi-supervised multi-structure segmentation in echocardiography,

    Z. Guo, Y . Zhang, Z. Qiu, S. Dong, S. He, H. Gao, J. Zhang, Y . Chen, B. He, Z. Kong et al. , “An improved contrastive learning network for semi-supervised multi-structure segmentation in echocardiography,” Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine , vol. 10, p. 1266260, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Basic transthoracic echocardiography,

    G. S. Hillis and P. Bloomfield, “Basic transthoracic echocardiography,” Bmj, vol. 330, no. 7505, pp. 1432–1436, 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Deep learning for segmentation using an open large-scale dataset in 2d echocardiography,

    S. Leclerc, E. Smistad, J. Pedrosa, A. Østvik, F. Cervenansky, F. Es- pinosa, T. Espeland, E. A. R. Berg, P.-M. Jodoin, T. Grenier et al. , “Deep learning for segmentation using an open large-scale dataset in 2d echocardiography,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d seman- tic segmentation for medical images,

    S. Li, C. Zhang, and X. He, “Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d seman- tic segmentation for medical images,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 23 . Springer, ...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Edmae: An efficient decoupled masked autoen- coder for standard view identification in pediatric echocardiography,

    Y . Liu, X. Han, T. Liang, B. Dong, J. Yuan, M. Hu, Q. Liu, J. Chen, Q. Li, and Y . Zhang, “Edmae: An efficient decoupled masked autoen- coder for standard view identification in pediatric echocardiography,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 86, p. 105280, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency,

    X. Luo, J. Chen, T. Song, and G. Wang, “Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 35, no. 10, 2021, pp. 8801– 8809

    2021

  6. [14]

    Efficient semi-supervised gross target volume of nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,

    X. Luo, W. Liao, J. Chen, T. Song, Y . Chen, S. Zhang, N. Chen, G. Wang, and S. Zhang, “Efficient semi-supervised gross target volume of nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Inter...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Deep echocar- diography: data-efficient supervised and semi-supervised deep learning towards automated diagnosis of cardiac disease,

    A. Madani, J. R. Ong, A. Tibrewal, and M. R. Mofrad, “Deep echocar- diography: data-efficient supervised and semi-supervised deep learning towards automated diagnosis of cardiac disease,” NPJ digital medicine , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Classmix: Segmentation-based data augmentation for semi-supervised learning,

    V . Olsson, W. Tranheden, J. Pinto, and L. Svensson, “Classmix: Segmentation-based data augmentation for semi-supervised learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 1369–1378

    2021

  9. [17]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmen- tation with cross-consistency training,

    Y . Ouali, C. Hudelot, and M. Tami, “Semi-supervised semantic segmen- tation with cross-consistency training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 12 674–12 684

    2020

  10. [18]

    Echocar- diography segmentation with enforced temporal consistency,

    N. Painchaud, N. Duchateau, O. Bernard, and P.-M. Jodoin, “Echocar- diography segmentation with enforced temporal consistency,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 2867–2878, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  13. [21]

    Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,

    A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    When cnn meet with vit: Towards semi-supervised learning for multi-class medical image semantic segmentation,

    Z. Wang, T. Li, J.-Q. Zheng, and B. Huang, “When cnn meet with vit: Towards semi-supervised learning for multi-class medical image semantic segmentation,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 424–441

    2022

  15. [23]

    Semi-supervised segmentation of echocardiography videos via noise-resilient spatiotem- poral semantic calibration and fusion,

    H. Wu, J. Liu, F. Xiao, Z. Wen, L. Cheng, and J. Qin, “Semi-supervised segmentation of echocardiography videos via noise-resilient spatiotem- poral semantic calibration and fusion,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 78, p. 102397, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training,

    Y . Wu, M. Xu, Z. Ge, J. Cai, and L. Zhang, “Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, ...

    2021

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    Boundary attention with multi-task consistency constraints for semi-supervised 2d echocar- diography segmentation,

    Y . Zhao, K. Liao, Y . Zheng, X. Zhou, and X. Guo, “Boundary attention with multi-task consistency constraints for semi-supervised 2d echocar- diography segmentation,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 171, p. 108100, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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