Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Structurally Consistent MRI Colorization using Cross-modal Fusion Learning

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 Colorized MRIs can keep their native structure while adopting cryosection colors by routing both outputs through a shared encoder and supervising with segmentation labels.

desk verdict Plausible architecture for whole-body MRI colorization, but the reported numbers can't be trusted: the test set likely leaks from training, and FSIM/STSIM compare against a misaligned reference the paper itself says can't be paired. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10452 v1 pith:GHIEHLLT submitted 2024-12-12 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Mayuri Mathur , Anav Chaudhary , Saurabh Kumar Gupta , Ojaswa Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords MRIcolorizationcross-modalfusioncycle-consistentGANcryosectionstructuralsimilaritysqueeze-and-excitationmedicalimagemultiscalelearning
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 aims to colorize whole-body MRI scans using colors from cryosection anatomy data while preserving the MRI's own structure, without needing precise registration between the two modalities or segmentation of the MRI. The proposed architecture builds the color-structure association through a cycle-consistent GAN whose MRI-to-colorized generator has two decoders: one synthesizes a pseudo-cryosection image from the MRI, and the other uses that association to colorize. A segmentation network trained on cryosection labels supervises the pseudo output, and squeeze-and-excitation-style compression-activation blocks in the skip connections suppress MRI noise and capture organ-level context. The authors report the method outperforms five colorization baselines on structural and color/texture metrics, and they argue this moves medical colorization from partial-body demonstrations to full-body, organ-specific color transfer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual-decoder colorization generator $G_{m\to\hat{c}}$ embedded in a cycle-consistent GAN. One decoder, $F_{x\to c'}$, synthesizes a pseudo-cryosection image from the shared bottleneck feature $x$, and a fixed U-Net segmenter $S_{c\to\hat{s}}$ turns that pseudo image into a label map, so cryosection segmentation semantics can supervise MRI colorization through cross-entropy loss even though the MRI and cryosection volumes are only partially registered. The other decoder, $F_{x\to\hat{c}}$, produces the final colorized MRI, and both decoders share the encoder $E_{m\to x}$; compression-activation blocks on skip connections suppress MRI noise and capture organ-level global information. The total objective is $L = L_{\text{cyc}} + L_{\text{ssim}} + L_{\text{seg}}$.

What would settle it

Re-run the Table I benchmark with a volume-disjoint split (for example, train on slices from one contiguous body segment and test on non-overlapping segments, or enforce a minimum slice-distance gap between train and test) and recompute the metrics; if the structural and color gains over APS and the other baselines shrink toward zero, the claimed superiority is an artifact of slice-level leakage rather than structural consistency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that structural consistency in medical colorization can be achieved by weaving cryosection segmentation semantics into a cyclic cross-modality generator without requiring paired, registered data. Concretely, the colorization generator $G_{m\to\hat{c}}$ produces both a colorized MRI $\hat{c}$ and a pseudo-cryosection image $c'$ from the same bottleneck; a fixed U-Net segmentation network maps $c'$ to a label map that is compared with the true cryosection segmentation via cross-entropy, aligning organ regions across modalities. The structural-consistency loss is a multi-patch SSIM between the input MRI and colorized MRI, and channel compression-activation blocks reweight features in skip connections to suppress noise and encode organ-level global context. On the Visible Korean Human data the authors report SSIM 0.863, MS-SSIM 0.866, STSIM 0.901, FSIM 0.755, and $\triangle$CF 0.005, which they interpret as colorized MRIs that are structurally closest to the input MRI and color/texture closest to the cryosection ground truth.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 2,000 test slices are independent of the 10,000 training slices, even though all 12,000 slices come from random planes within a single subject's registered volumes, so adjacent slices in the test set may be near-duplicates of training slices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Full-body MRI colorization no longer requires per-organ MRI segmentation or precisely registered MRI-cryosection pairs; the association is learned through a pseudo-cryosynthesis path.
  • Organ-level color consistency can be enforced by cryosection segmentation labels even when the source MRI has deformations and noise.
  • The multiscale module lets the same generator colorize inputs at 256x256, 128x128, and 64x64 with limited perceptual loss.
  • Reported quantitative results (SSIM 0.863, MS-SSIM 0.866, STSIM 0.901, FSIM 0.755, Delta-CF 0.005) position the method above ChromaGAN, ColorFormer, DDColor, APS, and ALDM on this dataset.
  • Compression-activation in skip connections is what preserves fine structures and organ-specific color variance: removing it (ablation A5) drops SSIM from 0.863 to 0.399 and raises Delta-CF from 0.005 to 0.203.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the train/test split is not volume-disjoint, the reported margin over baselines may shrink substantially; a nearest-neighbour check between test slices and training slices would reveal how much of the advantage is memorization of near-duplicate anatomy.
  • Inference: the same dual-decoder-plus-segmentation supervision scheme could transfer to other radiometric-to-anatomical colorization pairs, such as CT to cryosection, or to cross-modality synthesis where one modality has labels and the other does not.
  • Inference: the compression-activation blocks may also serve as a general denoising mechanism for MRI-to-image translation beyond colorization, since ablation A5 shows their removal erodes fine structure.
  • Inference: an unsupervised MRI segmentation capability would follow if the pseudo-cryosection decoder were reversed or shared, a direction the authors list as future work.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cycle-consistent GAN architecture for colorizing whole-body MRI by transferring colors from Visible Korean Human Cryosection data while preserving the MRI's own structures. The main novelty is a dual-decoder MRI-to-colorized-MRI generator: one decoder builds organ-to-color associations from Cryosection segmentation, and the other performs colorization, with skip-connection compression-activation blocks and a multiscale encoder. The method uses cyclic adversarial loss, an SSIM-based structural loss, and a segmentation loss. The authors report quantitative comparisons on 2,000 test slices against five baselines (ChromaGAN, ColorFormer, DDColor, APS, ALDM), claiming higher SSIM, MS-SSIM, STSIM, FSIM and lower ΔCF, plus qualitative and ablation results.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the paper would make a useful contribution to medical image colorization: it addresses a practical scenario of partially registered cross-modal data, avoids requiring MRI segmentation at inference, and proposes a concrete architectural mechanism (dual-decoder fusion with compression-activation skip connections) for organ-consistent color transfer. The ablation study covering cycle consistency, segmentation supervision, pseudo-Cryosection synthesis, and compression-activation is informative. However, two evaluation issues are load-bearing for the central performance claim: the train/test split is described as random slices from a single subject without volume-level separation, which likely leaks nearly duplicate adjacent slices into the test set; and the FSIM/STSIM metrics are computed against Cryosection ground truth that the paper itself says is not pairable with MRI data because deformations persist. These issues mean the quantitative superiority claim in the abstract and Section IV is not currently supported. The architecture is interesting, but the experimental evidence needs substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, dataset construction] The train/test split is not valid for the claimed generalization. The paper states that 12,000 slices are extracted at random planes from the volumetric MRI, Cryosection, and Segmentation data of a single subject and then split into 10,000 train and 2,000 test samples. Adjacent slices from the same volume are highly correlated, so a random slice split almost certainly places near-duplicate slices in both train and test sets. This can inflate all reported metrics and make the comparison against baselines unreliable. The authors should split by volume or by spatially separated slice blocks, or explicitly show that test slices are not adjacent to training slices. Without this, Table I does not support the superiority claim.
  2. [Section IV-A and Introduction] The FSIM and STSIM evaluations are internally inconsistent with the paper's own registration statement. The Introduction states that after rigid and B-spline deformable registration, deformations persist and 'the available Cryosection segmentation data cannot be paired with MRI data.' Yet Section IV-A defines FSIM and STSIM as measuring perceptual and textural similarity 'between ground truth Cryosection and colorized MRI,' and Table I reports FSIM=0.755 and STSIM=0.901 for the proposed method. Because the colorized output is aligned to the input MRI, not to the Cryosection volume, per-pixel FSIM/STSIM scores will largely reflect residual misregistration rather than color/texture fidelity. The reported FSIM/STSIM numbers are therefore not interpretable as evidence of colorization quality. The authors need to either evaluate on registered/test-time-aligned pairs or use metrics that are invariant to the known residual deformation.
  3. [Section IV-B and Table I] The baseline comparison may be unfair because no tuning details are given. The paper says all five competing methods were retrained on the Visible Korean Human dataset, but it does not report the training budget, hyperparameters, data augmentation, or per-method tuning for ChromaGAN, ColorFormer, DDColor, APS, and ALDM. Differences in training protocol alone can produce large differences in the reported metrics. The authors should provide the same training details for baselines as for their own method, or cite specific configurations and show that each baseline was given a reasonable chance to perform well.
  4. [Section III-D and Table I] The structural similarity metric is also part of the training objective, which weakens its role as an independent evaluation. Equations (5) and (6) define a multi-scale SSIM loss Lssim that is optimized during training, and Table I then reports SSIM as the headline structural metric. This does not make the comparison meaningless, but it means the SSIM gain over baselines is partly predetermined by the objective. The authors should report a structural metric that is not optimized in the loss, or clearly discuss this overlap in the evaluation. The same concern applies less directly to MS-SSIM, which is SSIM-derived.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A] The sentence 'Our proposed colorization architecture is designed using the generative adversarial network with a cyclic cross-modality adaptation technique [30], as shown in as shown in Fig. 1' contains a duplicated phrase; please fix.
  2. [Equation (8)] The notation s, ŝ ∈ R3 → {0,1} does not correctly describe multi-class segmentation maps. The maps should be tensors of shape (height, width, number_of_classes) with values in [0,1] or {0,1}; please revise the notation.
  3. [Table II, A1 row] The reported ΔCF = -0.001 ± 0.067 for A1 is negative, which is inconsistent with the definition of ΔCF as a difference of colorfulness scores unless negative differences are allowed. Please clarify whether ΔCF is an absolute difference or a signed difference, and ensure the sign conventions are consistent across all rows.
  4. [Table I, ALDM row] The standard deviations for ALDM (CF 0.831 ± 0.827, ΔCF 0.086 ± 0.760) are implausibly large and exceed the plausible range of the metrics. Please check the reported values; this may be a typographical error.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads 'Quantitative comparison of MRI colorization with different methods,' but the figure shows qualitative results. The caption should say 'Qualitative comparison.'
  6. [Section IV-A] There is a typo: 'colors in the output should be similar to Crysoction data' should read 'Cryosection data.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the architecture is an empirical system validated against external baselines; the SSIM training-loss overlap is an objective-alignment concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation or uniqueness claim that could reduce to its inputs. Its contribution is an empirical colorization architecture trained and tested on the Visible Korean Human dataset and compared against five external baselines retrained on the same data. The only self-citation, Mathur et al. [5], appears in related work and is not load-bearing. A mild concern is that the training objective includes an SSIM-based loss Lssim(m, c-hat) in Eq. (5)-(6), and the evaluation table reports SSIM between the same pair of images; this aligns the metric with the objective, but the reported superiority is not forced because the test set is separate and the central claim is additionally supported by FSIM, STSIM, deltaCF, and qualitative comparisons, none of which are optimized. The paper's own statement that deformations persist and Cryosection segmentation data cannot be paired with MRI data does undermine the interpretability of FSIM/STSIM comparisons against Cryosection ground truth, but that is an evaluation-validity issue rather than circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity burden is low.

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

The central performance claim rests on a handful of hand-chosen hyperparameters and on domain assumptions from CycleGAN and U-Net. The free parameters are not tuned systematically, and the train/test split is a choice that directly affects the reported superiority. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights for Lcyc, Lssim, Lseg = 1, 1, 1 (implicit)
    The total loss L = Lcyc + Lssim + Lseg uses unit weights; chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Learning rates = 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-6
    Set for generator, discriminator, and segmentation networks; chosen without reported tuning.
  • Train/test slice counts = 10,000 / 2,000
    Randomly extracted slices from volumes; the split protocol directly affects all reported metrics.
  • SSIM patch sizes = 3, 5, 7, 9
    Patch sizes aggregated in both Lssim and the SSIM evaluation metric.
  • Segmentation class count = 54 subclasses / 46 segmentations
    Inconsistent counts across Section III and Section IV; affects Lseg and the evaluation pipeline.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CycleGAN assumes a bijective mapping between MRI and Cryosection domains.
    The cyclic adversarial and reconstruction losses in Section III-D rely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained U-Net segmentation network generalizes to pseudo-Cryosection images c' synthesized by the generator.
    Section III-A fixes Sc->s and applies Lseg to c', assuming its output on synthetic images is semantically meaningful.
  • domain assumption Color and texture can be transferred from Cryosection to MRI while preserving MRI structure.
    This is the premise of the entire colorization task, stated in the abstract and Section I.
  • domain assumption Partial B-spline registration is sufficient for the cross-modal association to be learnable.
    Section III states deformations persist after registration; the method must work with only partial alignment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structurally Consistent MRI Colorization using Cross-modal Fusion Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHIEHLLT

@misc{pith2026241210452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structurally Consistent MRI Colorization using Cross-modal Fusion Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHIEHLLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10452}
}
read the original abstract

Medical image colorization can greatly enhance the interpretability of the underlying imaging modality and provide insights into human anatomy. The objective of medical image colorization is to transfer a diverse spectrum of colors distributed across human anatomy from Cryosection data to source MRI data while retaining the structures of the MRI. To achieve this, we propose a novel architecture for structurally consistent color transfer to the source MRI data. Our architecture fuses segmentation semantics of Cryosection images for stable contextual colorization of various organs in MRI images. For colorization, we neither require precise registration between MRI and Cryosection images, nor segmentation of MRI images. Additionally, our architecture incorporates a feature compression-and-activation mechanism to capture organ-level global information and suppress noise, enabling the distinction of organ-specific data in MRI scans for more accurate and realistic organ-specific colorization. Our experiments demonstrate that our architecture surpasses the existing methods and yields better quantitative and qualitative results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10452 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of our cycle consistent MRI colorization training model. The primary generator module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MRI colorization results on three scales of resolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantitative comparison of MRI colorization with different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Zoom-in comparison with competing methods: ColorFormer [2] and APS [17] produce appealing results, however a closer examination reveals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of the effectiveness of various components of our architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Zoom-in comparison with competing ablation experiments: in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ChromaGAN: Adversarial picture colorization with semantic class distribution,

    P. Vitoria, L. Raad, and C. Ballester, “ChromaGAN: Adversarial picture colorization with semantic class distribution,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2020, pp. 2445–2454

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Colorformer: Image colorization via color memory assisted hybrid- attention transformer,

    X. Ji, B. Jiang, D. Luo, G. Tao, W. Chu, Z. Xie, C. Wang, and Y . Tai, “Colorformer: Image colorization via color memory assisted hybrid- attention transformer,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 20–36. 9

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    DDColor: Towards photo-realistic image colorization via dual decoders,

    X. Kang, T. Yang, W. Ouyang, P. Ren, L. Li, and X. Xie, “DDColor: Towards photo-realistic image colorization via dual decoders,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 328–338

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    2D to 3D medical image colorization,

    A. N. Mathur, A. Khattar, and O. Sharma, “2D to 3D medical image colorization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , 2021, pp. 2847–2856

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Colorizing grayscale CT images of human lungs using deep learning methods,

    Y . Wang and W. Q. Yan, “Colorizing grayscale CT images of human lungs using deep learning methods,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 81, no. 26, pp. 37 805–37 819, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A novel brain tumor detection and coloring technique from 2D MRI images,

    I. Haq, N. Ullah, T. Mazhar, M. A. Malik, and I. Bano, “A novel brain tumor detection and coloring technique from 2D MRI images,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 5744, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Synergistic image and feature adaptation: Towards cross-modality domain adaptation for medical image segmentation,

    C. Chen, Q. Dou, H. Chen, J. Qin, and P.-A. Heng, “Synergistic image and feature adaptation: Towards cross-modality domain adaptation for medical image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 865–872

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Synthetic MRI-aided multi-organ segmentation on male pelvic CT using cycle consistent deep attention network,

    X. Dong, Y . Lei, S. Tian, T. Wang, P. Patel, W. J. Curran, A. B. Jani, T. Liu, and X. Yang, “Synthetic MRI-aided multi-organ segmentation on male pelvic CT using cycle consistent deep attention network,” Radiotherapy and Oncology , vol. 141, pp. 192–199, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    SynSeg-Net: Synthetic segmentation without target modality ground truth,

    Y . Huo, Z. Xu, H. Moon, S. Bao, A. Assad, T. K. Moyo, M. R. Savona, R. G. Abramson, and B. A. Landman, “SynSeg-Net: Synthetic segmentation without target modality ground truth,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1016–1025, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Identification of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) using ResNet with data augmentation using CycleGAN and ICH seg- mentation using SegAN,

    M. Ganeshkumar, V . Ravi, V . Sowmya, E. Gopalakrishnan, K. Soman, and C. Chakraborty, “Identification of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) using ResNet with data augmentation using CycleGAN and ICH seg- mentation using SegAN,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 81, no. 25,...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Unpaired MR to CT synthesis with Explicit Structural Constrained Adversarial Learning,

    Y . Ge, D. Wei, Z. Xue, Q. Wang, X. Zhou, Y . Zhan, and S. Liao, “Unpaired MR to CT synthesis with Explicit Structural Constrained Adversarial Learning,” in 2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019) , 2019, pp. 1096–1099

    2019

  5. [13]

    Cross-modality image synthesis from unpaired data using CycleGAN: Effects of gradient consistency loss and training data size,

    Y . Hiasa, Y . Otake, M. Takao, T. Matsuoka, K. Takashima, A. Carass, J. L. Prince, N. Sugano, and Y . Sato, “Cross-modality image synthesis from unpaired data using CycleGAN: Effects of gradient consistency loss and training data size,” in Simulation and Synthesis in Medical ...

    2018

  6. [14]

    MRI knee domain translation for unsupervised segmentation by CycleGAN (data from osteoarthritis initiative (OAI)),

    B. Felfeliyan, A. Hareendranathan, G. Kuntze, J. Jaremko, and J. Ron- sky, “MRI knee domain translation for unsupervised segmentation by CycleGAN (data from osteoarthritis initiative (OAI)),” in 2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Bi...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Unsupervised medical image translation using Cycle- MedGAN,

    K. Armanious, C. Jiang, S. Abdulatif, T. Küstner, S. Gatidis, and B. Yang, “Unsupervised medical image translation using Cycle- MedGAN,” in 2019 27th European Signal Processing Conference (EU- SIPCO), 2019, pp. 1–5

    2019

  8. [16]

    Adaptive latent diffusion model for 3D medical image to image translation: Multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging study,

    J. Kim and H. Park, “Adaptive latent diffusion model for 3D medical image to image translation: Multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging study,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision (WACV) , January 2024, pp. 7604–7613

    2024

  9. [17]

    An improved deep learning framework for MR-to-CT image synthesis with a new hybrid objective function,

    S. P. Ang, S. Lam Phung, M. Field, and M. M. Schira, “An improved deep learning framework for MR-to-CT image synthesis with a new hybrid objective function,” in 2022 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) , 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  10. [18]

    Super-attention for exemplar- based image colorization,

    H. Carrillo, M. Clément, and A. Bugeau, “Super-attention for exemplar- based image colorization,” in Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV), 2022, pp. 4548–4564

    2022

  11. [19]

    Non-local matching of superpixel-based deep features for color transfer,

    H. Carrillo, M. Clément, and A. Bugeau, “Non-local matching of superpixel-based deep features for color transfer,” in International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications , 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Squeeze-and-Excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-Excitation networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 7132–7141

    2018

  13. [21]

    Classification of lung nodules based on CT images using Squeeze- and-Excitation network and aggregated residual transformations,

    G. Zhang, Z. Yang, L. Gong, S. Jiang, L. Wang, and H. Zhang, “Classification of lung nodules based on CT images using Squeeze- and-Excitation network and aggregated residual transformations,” La radiologia medica, vol. 125, pp. 374–383, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Recalibrating fully convo- lutional networks with spatial and channel “Squeeze and Excitation

    A. G. Roy, N. Navab, and C. Wachinger, “Recalibrating fully convo- lutional networks with spatial and channel “Squeeze and Excitation” blocks,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 540– 549, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    DuSFE: Dual-channel Squeeze-fusion-Excitation co-attention for cross-modality registration of cardiac SPECT and CT,

    X. Chen, B. Zhou, H. Xie, X. Guo, J. Zhang, J. S. Duncan, E. J. Miller, A. J. Sinusas, J. A. Onofrey, and C. Liu, “DuSFE: Dual-channel Squeeze-fusion-Excitation co-attention for cross-modality registration of cardiac SPECT and CT,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 88, p. 102840, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Deepseed: 3D Squeeze-and-Excitation encoder- decoder convolutional neural networks for pulmonary nodule detection,

    Y . Li and Y . Fan, “Deepseed: 3D Squeeze-and-Excitation encoder- decoder convolutional neural networks for pulmonary nodule detection,” in 2020 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1866–1869

    2020

  17. [25]

    SEA-NET: medical image seg- mentation network based on spiral Squeeze-and-Excitation and attention modules,

    L. Xiong, C. Yi, Q. Xiong, and S. Jiang, “SEA-NET: medical image seg- mentation network based on spiral Squeeze-and-Excitation and attention modules,” BMC Medical Imaging , vol. 24, no. 1, p. 17, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Visible Korean Human: Another trial for making serially sectioned images,

    M. S. Chung, J. Y . Kim, W. S. Hwang, and J. S. Park, “Visible Korean Human: Another trial for making serially sectioned images,” Proceed- ings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering , 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Visible Korean Human: Improved serially sectioned images of the entire body,

    J. S. Park, M. S. Chung, S. B. Hwang, Y . S. Lee, D.-H. Har, and H. S. Park, “Visible Korean Human: Improved serially sectioned images of the entire body,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 24, no. Mar, pp. 352–360, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Visible Korean Human: Its techniques and applications,

    J. S. Park, M. S. Chung, S. B. Hwang, B.-S. Shin, and H. S. Park, “Visible Korean Human: Its techniques and applications,” Clinical Anatomy, vol. 19, pp. 216–224, 2006

    2006

  21. [29]

    Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration,

    S. Klein, M. Staring, K. Murphy, M. A. Viergever, and J. P. Pluim, “Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 196–205, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,

    J.-Y . Zhu, T. Park, P. Isola, and 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

  23. [31]

    U-Net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Comput- ing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI). Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  24. [32]

    Generative adversarial nets,

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

    2014

  25. [33]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Measuring colorfulness in natural images,

    D. Hasler and S. E. Suesstrunk, “Measuring colorfulness in natural images,” in Human vision and electronic imaging VIII, vol. 5007. SPIE, 2003, pp. 87–95

    2003

  27. [35]

    Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment,

    Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik, “Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment,” in The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, vol. 2. Ieee, 2003, pp. 1398–1402

    2003

  28. [36]

    Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assessment,

    L. Zhang, L. Zhang, X. Mou, and D. Zhang, “Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assessment,” IEEE transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2378–2386, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    Structural similarity met- rics for texture analysis and retrieval,

    J. Zujovic, T. N. Pappas, and D. L. Neuhoff, “Structural similarity met- rics for texture analysis and retrieval,” in 2009 16th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2009, pp. 2225–2228

    2009

  30. [38]

    Structural texture similarity metrics for retrieval applications,

    X. Zhao, M. G. Reyes, T. N. Pappas, and D. L. Neuhoff, “Structural texture similarity metrics for retrieval applications,” in 2008 15th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing , 2008, pp. 1196–1199

    2008

Pith tools

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