Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Structure-Aware Stylized Image Synthesis for Robust Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that adding a structure-preserving network to a one-shot diffusion stylizer keeps lesion location and size fixed, and that repainting training images in a target style raises segmentation Dice and IoU by about 10% on…

desk verdict OSASIS applied to medical segmentation, but the protocol uses test images for style transfer, so the 'target-free' claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04296 v1 pith:PIP7U7K5 submitted 2024-12-05 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Jie Bao , Zhixin Zhou , Wen Jung Li , Rui Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords medicalimagesegmentationdomaingeneralizationstyletransferdiffusionmodelsstructure-preservingnetworkpolypskinlesionone-shotstylization
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 the reason style transfer has not helped medical image segmentation much is that diffusion models alter lesion structure, and it proposes a Structure-Preserving Network (SPN) to stop that. Adding SPN to a one-shot diffusion stylizer lets a training set be repainted in a target domain's style while lesion location, size, and shape stay fixed. Segmentation models trained on those stylized images then score higher Dice, IoU, and related metrics on colonoscopy polyp and skin-lesion benchmarks than the same models trained on the original images. The paper further claims this holds even when the target domain is absent from the segmentation model's training set, so the stylizer acts as a plug-in preprocessing step for any existing segmentation network.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Structure-Preserving Network (SPN), a small convolutional block that applies a 1$\times$1 convolution to the input image's latent representation and adds the result to the diffusion latent at every reverse step. The diffusion model is a pretrained DDPM sampled with DDIM, conditioned on a semantic code from a Diffusion Autoencoder (DiffAE) encoder, so style comes from the target image while content comes from the source. Training combines a CLIP directional adversarial loss, a cycle-consistency loss, and an SPN structure-preservation loss; the SPN is what carries the paper's claim that lesion location and size are invariant between original and stylized images.

What would settle it

Train the style mapper on images from a third polyp dataset, keeping all CVC-ColonDB images out of both training stages, and then test on CVC-ColonDB; if the Dice and IoU gains disappear, the reported improvement came from test-domain leakage into the style-mapping stage rather than from structure-preserving stylization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that structure-aware one-shot stylization, implemented as OSASIS with an extra Structure-Preserving Network, turns a diffusion model into a safe domain translator for medical images: it changes appearance and background to match a target domain without moving, resizing, or reshaping the lesion. On colonoscopy polyp segmentation, PraNet with stylized inputs raises Dice from 0.7593 to 0.8415 and IoU from 0.6520 to 0.7712 over direct training; similar gains appear for U-Net and U-Net++, and the skin-lesion experiment shows the same pattern. The authors attribute the gain to the SPN's 1$\times$1 convolution being added to the diffusion latents at every reverse step, which preserves the input structure that plain diffusion stylization tends to erase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a test-domain image may be used to train the style-transfer stage without violating the claim that the target domain is absent from training; if target-domain images must be withheld from the entire pipeline, the experiments no longer test what the paper promises.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, any existing segmentation network, such as U-Net, U-Net++, or PraNet, can be improved by prepending this stylizer, with no changes to the segmentation architecture.
  • The stylizer needs only one target-domain image to define the style, so a hospital could adapt a model to a new device by supplying a single representative scan.
  • Because SPN keeps lesion geometry fixed, the stylized images can be used as training data without introducing the label misalignment that naive style transfer would cause.
  • The roughly 10-point Dice and IoU gains reported for PraNet on polyps imply that the stylized training corpus, not the original corpus, is what segmentation models should be trained on when a new acquisition condition is encountered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the experiments conflate two forms of generalization. Because Algorithm 1 uses a test-set image to train the style mapping G, the target domain is absent only from the segmentation model's training, not from the overall pipeline; a stricter test would hold out entire target datasets from both stages.
  • Editorial inference: the SPN is a weak structural prior, so the method's ability to preserve lesion geometry could be measured directly by computing centroid shift and area change between source and stylized images; the paper reports qualitative examples but not such a quantitative structure-preservation metric.
  • Editorial extension: if the method generalizes as claimed, it should transfer to other medical imaging modalities such as CT or MRI and to multi-target setups where one stylizer is trained on several target styles at once; those settings would stress-test whether SPN preserves structure independent of style.
  • Editorial extension: because the stylizer needs only one target image, a natural clinical deployment is to restyle the existing labeled source corpus to match a new device and then retrain, which could be evaluated on prospective data from that device.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a medical image segmentation pipeline that combines diffusion-based style transfer with a Structure-Preserving Network (SPN), following the OSASIS method, to stylize training images into a target-domain style before training a segmentation model. The authors claim this improves segmentation robustness and accuracy across domains even when the target domain is absent from the training set, and they present experiments on colonoscopy polyp segmentation and skin lesion segmentation comparing U-Net, U-Net++, and PraNet with and without style transfer. The central domain-generalization claim, however, is contradicted by the experimental protocol: Algorithm 1 explicitly uses images from Ytest to train the style mapping, and Section 5.4 confirms that 20 CVC-ColonDB test images were used as the style target. As a result, the reported comparisons are between direct training and a pipeline that has access to test-domain style information, which is a domain-adaptation setup rather than the zero-target-access domain-generalization setup advertised in the abstract and conclusion.

Significance. If substantiated, a plug-in stylization method that improves cross-domain segmentation without target-domain data would be practically valuable for medical imaging, especially in low-resource clinical settings. The paper also has the merit of applying a well-known method (OSASIS) to medical segmentation and evaluating multiple segmentation backbones with several metrics. However, the central claim is not supported by the evidence as presented: the protocol uses test-domain images in the style-transfer training stage, the test sets are very small (20 images), the tables report single runs without error bars, and the only baseline is direct training without comparison to existing domain generalization or domain adaptation methods. The observed improvements may be genuine for a test-time-adaptation variant, but they do not establish the paper's headline claim of domain generalization without target-domain access.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.6, Algorithm 1, line 1; §5.4] The paper's central claim that the method works 'even when the target domain is not included in the training set' (Contribution 3, Abstract, Conclusion) is contradicted by the protocol. Algorithm 1 selects a random image yin_B ∈ Yi from Ytest as Domain B and trains the style mapping G against it, and Section 5.4 confirms that 20 CVC-ColonDB test images were used as the style target. The style-transfer stage therefore has direct access to test-domain images, so the evaluation is a domain-adaptation setting, not the domain-generalization setting claimed. The observed gains in Tables 1 and 2 may be valid for that adaptive setup, but they do not support the headline claim.
  2. [§5.4, Tables 1–2] The test set in the polyp experiment consists of 20 selected images from CVC-ColonDB, and the skin lesion experiment similarly uses 20 test images. Tables 1 and 2 report single-run Dice, IoU, and other metrics with no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results. With n = 20, the reported improvements of roughly 10% in Dice and IoU cannot be distinguished from run-to-run variability, so the quantitative claims are not statistically established.
  3. [§5.1, §5.4] The only baseline is the 'direct approach' of training the segmentation model on the original source images. There is no comparison to existing domain generalization or domain adaptation methods (e.g., DANN, CORAL, IRM, or other style-transfer-based DG approaches), nor to the OSASIS method itself. Consequently, the claim of 'superior performance metrics compared to baseline models' is limited to a comparison with no stylization and does not demonstrate an improvement over the state of the art for cross-domain medical image segmentation.
  4. [§4, §2.1] The methodology section (Equations 1–13 and the SPN description) is essentially a restatement of the OSASIS method of [16], which the paper acknowledges in Section 2.1. The paper does not clearly delineate which components are novel contributions beyond applying OSASIS to medical image segmentation and attaching a segmentation head. Since the title and introduction claim a 'novel medical image segmentation method', the novelty attribution needs to be explicit and justified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figures 5 and 7] The captions of Figures 5 and 7 contain garbled text sequences such as '/uni00000027/uni0000004c/...' that appear to be rendering artifacts; these should be corrected.
  2. [§4.1, Equations (1)–(2)] The equations for DDIM forward and reverse processes are typeset incorrectly (e.g., the square root and epsilon terms are malformed), making them hard to read; they should be reformatted to match standard notation.
  3. [§4.5.1, Equation (11)] The cycle consistency loss uses F and G without defining these mappings earlier in the text; in Algorithm 1, G is the overall style mapping, but the equation's notation is unclear. Please define F and G explicitly.
  4. [§4.5.2, Equation (14)] The segmentation loss is defined with fθ in the equation, but the accompanying text says 'denotes the segmentation model'; also 'Segment' is not defined. Use one consistent symbol for the segmentation model.
  5. [§4.6, Algorithm 1, line 2] The description 'Freeze parameters of DiffAEDA for Domain A and Set DiffAEDB for Domain B to train mode' is ambiguous; later, backpropagation updates 'the Structure-Preserving Network and mapping functions G, specifically zB_sem.' Please clarify exactly which parameters are trainable and which are frozen.
  6. [§5.4] The paper states that 178 images were chosen from CVC-ClinicDB; it is unclear whether this is the full training set or a subset, and if a subset, how the selection was made. Please specify the exact data split and the number of test images used for evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparisons are empirical and the target-domain leakage is a protocol issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any predicted quantity from the same quantity by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The style-transfer-plus-segmentation pipeline is evaluated by training U-Net, U-Net++, and PraNet on either raw or stylized training images and then testing on target images, so the reported Dice/IoU gains are empirical outcomes rather than identities. The most serious concern is that Algorithm 1 (line 1) selects a style reference image from Ytest and Section 5.4 confirms that 20 CVC-ColonDB test images were used as the style target, which undercuts the headline claim that the target domain is absent from the method's training data; however, this is a domain-adaptation and protocol-validity issue, not circular reasoning, because the segmentation improvement is not forced by construction and the segmentation models themselves never train on target-domain labels or images. The SPN and one-shot stylization are adopted from the cited OSASIS work [16] by other authors, so there is no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness argument imported from the present authors. The structure-preservation guarantee is supported mainly by qualitative examples and a consistency loss rather than by a formal derivation, which is an evidence-strength concern, but again not a circular reduction. Therefore the derivation chain is not circular, and the leakage concern should be weighed as a correctness risk rather than as circularity.

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

The paper contributes no new model components; it borrows OSASIS, DiffAE, CLIP, and standard segmentation networks. The main free choices are loss weights and diffusion scheduling parameters, none of which are reported. The central claims rest on the unverified assumption that a style transfer model trained for natural images works on medical images and that a single target image represents an entire clinical domain.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 = not reported
    Balancing weights in Eq. 13 for adversarial, cycle, and structure-preservation losses; chosen by hand and not reported.
  • T1, T2 = not reported
    Forward diffusion frequency and backward propagation time in Algorithm 1; values not given, affect stylization.
  • n (style transfer iterations) = not reported
    Number of iterations for Algorithm 1; not reported.
  • segmentation training hyperparameters = not reported
    Only batch size 12 and Adam optimizer are given; learning rate, epochs, and schedule are absent.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained DDPM/DDIM, DiffAE and CLIP models transfer to medical image stylization without task-specific retraining.
    Algorithm 1 loads and freezes these models for the source domain and only trains the target DiffAE; no medical fine-tuning of the diffusion backbone is described.
  • domain assumption One target image (or a small consistent set) captures the full style of the target domain.
    The one-shot stylization design in Section 2.2 and Algorithm 1 uses a single yin_B from Ytest to define the domain style.
  • domain assumption Style is the only important domain shift; structure preservation by SPN is sufficient for source labels to remain valid after stylization.
    The segmentation loss in Eq. 14 is applied directly to stylized images with original labels, so the paper assumes no label-corrupting content change.
  • ad hoc to paper The DG framing allows target-domain images to be used in the style transfer stage without weakening the claim.
    Algorithm 1 uses Ytest images; this contradicts standard DG assumptions and the paper's own statement that the target domain is not used.
  • standard math The DDIM sampling equations (Eqs. 1-3) are valid as stated.
    The diffusion updates are taken from prior work and are assumed correct background math.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure-Aware Stylized Image Synthesis for Robust Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIP7U7K5

@misc{pith2026241204296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure-Aware Stylized Image Synthesis for Robust Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIP7U7K5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04296}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate medical image segmentation is essential for effective diagnosis and treatment planning but is often challenged by domain shifts caused by variations in imaging devices, acquisition conditions, and patient-specific attributes. Traditional domain generalization methods typically require inclusion of parts of the test domain within the training set, which is not always feasible in clinical settings with limited diverse data. Additionally, although diffusion models have demonstrated strong capabilities in image generation and style transfer, they often fail to preserve the critical structural information necessary for precise medical analysis. To address these issues, we propose a novel medical image segmentation method that combines diffusion models and Structure-Preserving Network for structure-aware one-shot image stylization. Our approach effectively mitigates domain shifts by transforming images from various sources into a consistent style while maintaining the location, size, and shape of lesions. This ensures robust and accurate segmentation even when the target domain is absent from the training data. Experimental evaluations on colonoscopy polyp segmentation and skin lesion segmentation datasets show that our method enhances the robustness and accuracy of segmentation models, achieving superior performance metrics compared to baseline models without style transfer. This structure-aware stylization framework offers a practical solution for improving medical image segmentation across diverse domains, facilitating more reliable clinical diagnoses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Segmentation Challenge in Medical Images under Domain Shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We selected several representative images from the training set in Polyp Datasets, and above are the results after style transfer. As observed, the transferred images still retain the lesion location information corresponding to the mask. applying Diffusion Models for style transfer, critical structural information in medical images may not be adequately retained, thereby limiting their effectiveness in the field of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Medical Image Stylization for Segmentation Under Domain Shift. achieve the conversion between two domains, and the trained OSASIS model can generalize to perform style transfers from other source domains to the target domain. This characteristic not only addresses the issue of diminished model generalization when there are significant differences between the test and training domains but also allows our style transf… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of different models and models after style transfer in Polyp Datasets. Dice IoU Specificity F w S E max 1-MAE 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 UNet UNet(ST) Dice IoU Specificity F w S E max 1-MAE 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 UNet++ UNet++(ST) Dice…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radar charts illustrating the performance metrics (Dice, IoU, Specificity, F w β , Sα, Emax ϕ , and 1-MAE) of UNet, UNet++ and PraNet segmentation models and their style transfer variants on Polyp datasets. 5.5. Skin Lesions Segmentation Experiment. Skin lesion segment…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results of different models and models after style transfer in Skin Lesions Datasets. Dice IoU Specificity F w S E max 1-MAE 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 UNet UNet(ST) Dice IoU Specificity F w S E max 1-MAE 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 UNet++ UNet++(S…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radar charts illustrating the performance metrics (Dice, IoU, Specificity, F w β , Sα, Emax ϕ , and 1-MAE) of UNet, UNet++ and PraNet segmentation models and their style transfer variants on Skin datasets. 6. Conclusion Our proposed method effectively addresses the cha…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    H. Cho, J. Lee, S. Chang, Y. Jeong, One-shot structure-aware stylized image synthesis, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 8302–8311

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    F. Lyu, M. Ye, T. C.-F. Yip, G. L.-H. Wong, P. C. Yuen, Local style transfer via latent space manipulation for cross-disease lesion segmentation, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Minaee, Y

    S. Minaee, Y. Boykov, F. Porikli, A. Plaza, N. Kehtarnavaz, D. Terzopoulos, Image segmentation using deep learning: A survey, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 44 (7) (2021) 3523–3542

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    K. M. Hosny, D. Elshoura, E. R. Mohamed, E. Vrochidou, G. A. Papakostas, Deep learning and optimization-based methods for skin lesions segmentation: a review, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 85467–85488

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Banik, K

    D. Banik, K. Roy, D. Bhattacharjee, M. Nasipuri, O. Krejcar, Polyp-net: A multimodel fusion network for polyp segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 70 (2020) 1–12

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    J. Wang, H. Lu, A. Wang, Y. Chen, D. He, Hierarchical style-aware domain generalization for remote physiological measurement, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Arpit, H

    D. Arpit, H. Wang, Y. Zhou, C. Xiong, Ensemble of averages: Improving model selection and boosting performance in domain generalization, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022) 8265–8277

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Ouyang, C

    C. Ouyang, C. Chen, S. Li, Z. Li, C. Qin, W. Bai, D. Rueckert, Causality-inspired single-source domain generalization for medical image segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42 (4) (2022) 1095–1106

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    S. Hu, Z. Liao, J. Zhang, Y. Xia, Domain and content adaptive convolution based multi-source domain generalization for medical image segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42 (1) (2022) 233–244

    2022

  2. [9]

    Zhang, N

    Y. Zhang, N. Huang, F. Tang, H. Huang, C. Ma, W. Dong, C. Xu, Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 10146–10156

    2023

  3. [10]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020) 6840–6851

    2020

  4. [11]

    G. Kwon, J. C. Ye, Diffusion-based image translation using disentangled style and content representation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15264 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, Generative adversarial nets, Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    J.-Y. Zhu, T. Park, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2017, pp. 2223–2232

    2017

  7. [14]

    Z. Wang, L. Zhao, W. Xing, Stylediffusion: Controllable disentangled style transfer via diffusion models, in: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 7677–7689

    2023

  8. [15]

    Zhang, A

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, M. Agrawala, Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 3836–3847

    2023

  9. [17]

    H. Li, S. J. Pan, S. Wang, A. C. Kot, Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 5400–5409

    2018

  10. [18]

    A. Rame, C. Dancette, M. Cord, Fishr: Invariant gradient variances for out-of-distribution generalization, in: Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 18347–18377

    2022

  11. [19]

    Y. Shi, J. Seely, P. H. Torr, N. Siddharth, A. Hannun, N. Usunier, G. Synnaeve, Gradient matching for domain generalization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09937 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. Sun, K. Saenko, Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation, in: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14, Springer, 2016, pp. 443–450

    2016

  13. [21]

    Ganin, E

    Y. Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Laviolette, M. March, V. Lempitsky, Domain- adversarial training of neural networks, Journal of machine learning research 17 (59) (2016) 1–35

    2016

  14. [22]

    Muandet, D

    K. Muandet, D. Balduzzi, B. Schölkopf, Domain generalization via invariant feature representation, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2013, pp. 10–18

    2013

  15. [23]

    Arjovsky, L

    M. Arjovsky, L. Bottou, I. Gulrajani, D. Lopez-Paz, Invariant risk minimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Huang, H

    Z. Huang, H. Wang, E. P. Xing, D. Huang, Self-challenging improves cross-domain generalization, in: Computer vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, proceedings, part II 16, Springer, 2020, pp. 124–140

    2020

  17. [25]

    Krueger, E

    D. Krueger, E. Caballero, J.-H. Jacobsen, A. Zhang, J. Binas, D. Zhang, R. Le Priol, A. Courville, Out-of-distribution generalization via risk extrapolation (rex), in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 5815– 5826

    2021

  18. [26]

    D. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Yang, C. Liu, Y.-Z. Song, T. M. Hospedales, Episodic training for domain generalization, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 1446–1455

    2019

  19. [27]

    D. Li, Y. Yang, Y.-Z. Song, T. Hospedales, Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for domain generalization, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 32, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Albuquerque, N

    I. Albuquerque, N. Naik, J. Li, N. Keskar, R. Socher, Improving out-of-distribution generalization via multi-task self-supervised pretraining, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13525 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bucci, A

    S. Bucci, A. D’Innocente, Y. Liao, F. M. Carlucci, B. Caputo, T. Tommasi, Self-supervised learning across domains, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44 (9) (2021) 5516–5528

    2021

  22. [30]

    X. Yue, Y. Zhang, S. Zhao, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, K. Keutzer, B. Gong, Domain randomization and pyramid consistency: Simulation-to-realgeneralizationwithoutaccessingtargetdomaindata, in: ProceedingsoftheIEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 2100–...

    2019

  23. [31]

    K. Zhou, C. C. Loy, Z. Liu, Semi-supervised domain generalization with stochastic stylematch, International Journal of Computer Vision 131 (9) (2023) 2377–2387

    2023

  24. [32]

    Y. Gu, Z. Ge, C. P. Bonnington, J. Zhou, Progressive transfer learning and adversarial domain adaptation for cross- domain skin disease classification, IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 24 (5) (2019) 1379–1393

    2019

  25. [33]

    Zunaed, M

    M. Zunaed, M. A. Haque, T. Hasan, Learning to generalize towards unseen domains via a content-aware style invariant model for disease detection from chest x-rays, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, 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 18, Spring...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Z. Zhou, M. M. Rahman Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, J. Liang, Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation, in: Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8th Inter...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Fan, G.-P

    D.-P. Fan, G.-P. Ji, T. Zhou, G. Chen, H. Fu, J. Shen, L. Shao, Pranet: Parallel reverse attention network for polyp segmentation, in: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, 2020, pp. 263–273

    2020

  29. [37]

    J. Song, C. Meng, S. Ermon, Denoising diffusion implicit models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Preechakul, N

    K. Preechakul, N. Chatthee, S. Wizadwongsa, S. Suwajanakorn, Diffusion autoencoders: Toward a meaningful and decodable representation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10619–10629

    2022

  31. [39]

    P. Zhu, R. Abdal, J. Femiani, P. Wonka, Mind the gap: Domain gap control for single shot domain adaptation for generative adversarial networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08398 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. Jha, P. H. Smedsrud, M. A. Riegler, D. Johansen, T. De Lange, P. Halvorsen, H. D. Johansen, Resunet++: An advanced architecture for medical image segmentation, in: 2019 IEEE international symposium on multimedia (ISM), IEEE, 2019, pp. 225–2255

    2019

  33. [41]

    Fan, M.-M

    D.-P. Fan, M.-M. Cheng, Y. Liu, T. Li, A. Borji, Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps, in: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2017, pp. 4548–4557

    2017

  34. [42]

    D.-P. Fan, C. Gong, Y. Cao, B. Ren, M.-M. Cheng, A. Borji, Enhanced-alignment measure for binary foreground map evaluation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10421 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bernal, F

    J. Bernal, F. J. Sánchez, G. Fernández-Esparrach, D. Gil, C. Rodríguez, F. Vilariño, Wm-dova maps for accurate polyp highlighting in colonoscopy: Validation vs. saliency maps from physicians, Computerized medical imaging and graphics 43 (2015) 99–111

    2015

  36. [44]

    Tajbakhsh, S

    N. Tajbakhsh, S. R. Gurudu, J. Liang, Automated polyp detection in colonoscopy videos using shape and context information, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 35 (2) (2015) 630–644

    2015

  37. [45]

    Tschandl, C

    P. Tschandl, C. Rosendahl, H. Kittler, The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions, Scientific data 5 (1) (2018) 1–9

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.