Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 43 references

In-context learning for medical image segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 By feeding each slice's predicted mask back into the support set, ICS segmentation improves inter-slice consistency and Dice score on five of eight HVSMR cardiac regions.

desk verdict A modest but genuinely training-free cascade over UniverSeg; the paper is honest but must resolve whether HVSMR is actually outside UniverSeg's pretraining set. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13299 v2 pith:7WXCP637 submitted 2024-12-17 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Eichi Takaya , Shinnosuke Yamamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords in-contextlearningmedicalimagesegmentationfew-shotinter-sliceconsistencysupportsetUniverSegHVSMRsemi-supervised
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

In-context Cascade Segmentation (ICS) adds no new training. It takes the pretrained few-shot segmenter UniverSeg and, after predicting a mask for one slice of a volume, appends that mask to the support set used for the next slice, running forward and backward from a few labeled slices. The paper claims this simple feedback loop gives significantly higher Dice scores than independent per-slice inference in the left atrium, right atrium, ascending aorta, pulmonary artery, and superior vena cava (p<0.05), while matching baseline performance in the other three regions. The motivation is practical: a radiologist labels only a handful of slices, and the model then propagates the labels through the volume with stable boundaries.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a sliding support set under a fixed pretrained model. Starting from m labeled slices, UniverSeg predicts slice i+1, that prediction is appended to the support set, and the oldest entry is dropped once the set exceeds m; the same procedure runs in reverse from the initial slice. Because UniverSeg's CrossBlock modules exchange features between query and support images, each new support mask injects nearby anatomical context into the next query, which is what enforces slice-to-slice consistency without any gradient updates.

What would settle it

Check whether HVSMR-2.0 appears in UniverSeg's MegaMedical pretraining corpus; if it does, rerun the comparison on a held-out in-house volume or a dataset released after UniverSeg's training cutoff and see whether the significant DSC gains in LA, RA, AO, PA, and SVC persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the HVSMR dataset (eight cardiac targets across 60 MRI scans), the paper's central claim is that iteratively enlarging the support set with each slice's own prediction produces segmentations that are more consistent across neighboring slices and more accurate in five of eight anatomical regions than the same model without in-context updates. The gain is attributed to information propagating forward and backward through the sequence, so that anatomical structure visible in neighboring slices acts as context for each query. Where ICS loses, notably the left ventricle, it tends to over-segment, adding false positives; the paper treats this as a known failure mode of self-training-style pseudo-label feedback to be mitigated with confidence metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes HVSMR was not among the 53 public datasets used to pretrain UniverSeg; if that assumption is wrong, the reported gains could come from memorization rather than from the cascade mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fewer labeled slices suffice: with m=5 initial slices, ICS propagates labels through entire volumes, reducing annotation load for sequential CT and MRI data.
  • Boundary consistency improves in complex structures such as the pulmonary artery, where per-slice baseline inference produces discontinuous predictions and missing areas.
  • The number and spatial placement of initial support slices materially change accuracy; more supports generally help, but the effect plateaus and costs inference time and memory.
  • ICS reduces slice-to-slice variance in Dice score relative to independent per-slice inference, giving more stable volume-level segmentations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test other modalities; if the consistency gain is due to pseudo-label feedback rather than dataset memorization, the same cascade should transfer to CT, ultrasound, and other sequential modalities.
  • The position sensitivity suggests a cheap pre-annotation step, analogous to cold-start active learning: cluster slice appearances and pick a central or representative slice as the initial support before any labels are drawn.
  • A confidence-gated update, appending only masks above a per-slice confidence threshold, could reduce the left-ventricle over-segmentation the paper observed; this is a concrete extension the paper only gestures at with future-work language.
  • The five regions with significant gains (LA, RA, AO, PA, SVC) are generally smaller or geometrically complex, whereas the non-significant LV, RV, and IVC are larger cavities; whether benefit scales with boundary complexity is worth testing explicitly.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper proposes In-context Cascade Segmentation (ICS), a training-free extension of the UniverSeg few-shot segmentation framework for sequential medical volumes. ICS initializes a support set from a few labeled slices, then performs forward and backward inference across the volume, iteratively appending predicted masks to the support set (with a sliding window of size m) to propagate anatomical context. The method is evaluated on the HVSMR dataset for eight cardiac structures, reporting Dice similarity coefficients against the baseline UniverSeg applied independently per slice. The paper also studies the effect of the number of initial support slices and their positions. The main claimed finding is that ICS significantly improves DSC in five of eight regions (LA, RA, AO, PA, SVC) at p<0.05, with qualitative illustrations of improved inter-slice consistency.

Significance. If the empirical claims survive scrutiny, ICS offers a simple, practical way to reduce annotation burden for sequential medical images by exploiting an existing pretrained few-shot model without any training or fine-tuning. The idea of updating the support set with predicted masks resembles self-training/pseudo-label propagation, but applying it within UniverSeg's in-context learning framework and evaluating on cardiac MRI is a useful contribution. The paper is transparent about its limitations, which is commendable. However, the significance is contingent on two load-bearing validity conditions: (i) that HVSMR was not part of UniverSeg's pretraining, and (ii) that the statistical analysis supports the claimed significant improvements. Both are currently unverified. The ablation of support slice number and position is informative but descriptive, lacking statistical tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6 / Section 4.1] The assumption that HVSMR was not used in UniverSeg's pretraining is unverified. The paper states in Section 6: "Because UniverSeg utilizes a large portion of publicly available datasets, it was necessary to rely on the limited open datasets that were not used for pre-training," and then restricts evaluation to HVSMR without citing the MegaMedical dataset composition or otherwise demonstrating non-overlap. Since HVSMR is a public cardiac MRI dataset that predates UniverSeg, and UniverSeg was trained on 53 public datasets (Section 3.2), this assumption is not safe. Please verify by listing the MegaMedical datasets (or documenting HVSMR's absence), or by running a control experiment on a dataset known to be excluded. If HVSMR is in the training set, the reported DSC gains reflect in-distribution performance rather than few-shot generalization, and the central claim of reducing annotation burden on unseen volumes is unsupported.
  2. [Section 5 / Table 1] The statistical comparison is under-specified and the significance claim is overstated. No test name is given (paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank, or other), and no multiple-comparison correction is reported for the eight regions. With a Bonferroni threshold of 0.00625, only LA (p=0.0007), PA (p<0.0001), and SVC (p<0.0001) would remain significant; RA (p=0.0214) and AO (p=0.0206) would not. The abstract's claim that ICS "significantly outperforms baseline methods" should be revised to reflect a corrected analysis, and the manuscript should name the test, justify its assumptions, and report adjusted p-values or confidence intervals.
  3. [Section 4.1 / Evaluation] Excluding slices without the target structure before evaluation biases the DSC comparison. The paper states: "As a preprocessing step, we removed any slices that did not contain the region of interest (i.e., no annotated labels)." In sequential medical volumes, empty slices are anatomically meaningful; a method that correctly predicts nothing in those slices should be rewarded, and a method that spuriously predicts there should be penalized. Removing these slices inflates DSC and may differentially affect baseline and ICS (e.g., ICS's tendency to over-segment, noted in Section 6). Please report results on the complete volumes and, if the filtered analysis is retained, discuss the direction of bias.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says ICS "significantly outperforms baseline methods" (plural), but only one baseline (UniverSeg) is compared; this should be reworded to match the experimental scope.
  2. [Algorithm 1 / Section 4.4] The symbol m is used both for the initial number of labeled slices and for the maximum support set size; clarify the relationship, and in the "varying m" experiment, specify whether the initial support set size and the sliding window size change together.
  3. [Section 4.2 / Figure 8] The initial support slice position experiment lacks details on how many positions were tested, which slice indices were used, and whether any statistical analysis was performed; the claim that "positions strongly influence segmentation accuracy" is currently supported only by visual inspection.
  4. [Figure 3] The box plots would benefit from paired significance markers and a note on the test used, consistent with Table 1.
  5. [Figure 2] The caption contains a typo: "in-contest cascade segmentation" should be "in-context cascade segmentation."
  6. [References] Reference [26] contains a typo: "Iternational" should be "International."
  7. [Section 6 / Limitations] The first limitation is worded confusingly: "the assumption that all volumes, including the boundary slices, are labeled" is unclear because the method itself operates on unlabeled slices; the authors likely mean that the evaluation assumes ground-truth masks exist for every slice, which is the same issue as the empty-slice removal discussed in the major comments.
  8. [Section 3.3] The description of data augmentation (rotations by 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees) applied to the support set is ambiguous: does this multiply the support set size by four at every inference step, and does the baseline receive the same augmentation? Clarify the procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ICS performance is evaluated against ground truth; UniverSeg is an external pretrained model, and the only self-citation [40] is incidental.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: ICS produces masks via UniverSeg fed with iteratively augmented support sets, and accuracy is measured by DSC against ground-truth masks on HVSMR. The predicted masks entering the support set are not the evaluation target; the evaluation target is correspondence to ground truth, so the feedback loop does not make the result true by construction. The UniverSeg model is external published work [19], not an author self-citation, and the paper does not fit any parameter to the test labels. The sole self-citation [40] appears in related work and in a discussion analogy about over-segmentation resembling self-training; it is not load-bearing for the main comparison. Section 6's caveat that HVSMR may overlap UniverSeg pretraining is a data-contamination and validity concern, not circularity: even if true, it would mean the benchmark is not a clean generalization test, but it would not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No equation or definition reduces the claimed result to its own assumptions, so no circular step can be quoted.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the unverified exclusion of HVSMR from UniverSeg training, the informativeness of pseudo-labels in the support set, and inter-slice spatial coherence. The main hand-chosen free parameters are the support window size and the placement of initial labeled slices.

free parameters (3)
  • support set window size m (also initial labeled slice count) = 5 (default); varied 1-5 in experiments
    Hand-chosen hyperparameter; Section 4.4 fixes m=5, Figure 7 varies it. It controls context length and directly affects DSC.
  • initial support slice positions = varied per region and patient
    Section 4.2 and Figure 8 show DSC depends strongly on where the initial labeled slices sit; no principled selection rule is provided.
  • augmentation (rotations 90/180/270) = 90, 180, 270 degrees
    Applied to support images in all runs; fixed by implementation, not justified or ablated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption HVSMR was not used in UniverSeg pretraining
    Stated in Section 6 limitations; no evidence or citation supplied, and HVSMR is a public dataset that could be in the MegaMedical corpus.
  • domain assumption Predicted masks are accurate enough to serve as support context without leading to error accumulation
    Core to the cascade mechanism; the paper notes over-segmentation in LV/IVC but includes no confidence filtering or error analysis.
  • domain assumption Consecutive MRI slices are spatially coherent, so adding neighboring predicted slices to the support set improves inter-slice consistency
    Implied by Sections 3.3 and 5; no quantitative analysis of slice spacing or anatomical continuity is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-context learning for medical image segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WXCP637

@misc{pith2026241213299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-context learning for medical image segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WXCP637}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13299}
}
read the original abstract

Annotation of medical images, such as MRI and CT scans, is crucial for evaluating treatment efficacy and planning radiotherapy. However, the extensive workload of medical professionals limits their ability to annotate large image datasets, posing a bottleneck for AI applications in medical imaging. To address this, we propose In-context Cascade Segmentation (ICS), a novel method that minimizes annotation requirements while achieving high segmentation accuracy for sequential medical images. ICS builds on the UniverSeg framework, which performs few-shot segmentation using support images without additional training. By iteratively adding the inference results of each slice to the support set, ICS propagates information forward and backward through the sequence, ensuring inter-slice consistency. We evaluate the proposed method on the HVSMR dataset, which includes segmentation tasks for eight cardiac regions. Experimental results demonstrate that ICS significantly improves segmentation performance in complex anatomical regions, particularly in maintaining boundary consistency across slices, compared to baseline methods. The study also highlights the impact of the number and position of initial support slices on segmentation accuracy. ICS offers a promising solution for reducing annotation burdens while delivering robust segmentation results, paving the way for its broader adoption in clinical and research applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13299 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UniverSeg for sequential inference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of in-contest cascade segmentation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Box plots of the DSC for the baseline method (green) and ICS (orange) across each anatomical region. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Segmentation results for the PA region in selected slices of a patient’s volume. From top to bottom: the raw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Segmentation results for the LV region in selected slices of a patient’s volume. From top to bottom: the raw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Line plots of the DSC for the baseline method (blue) and ICS (red) across consecutive slices in the PA (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Box plots of the DSC for each anatomical region when varying the number of initial labeled slices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Line plots of the DSC for each anatomical region when varying the initial labeled slice position. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive review of deep neural networks for medical image processing: Recent developments and future opportunities

    Pawan Kumar Mall, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Swapnita Srivastav, Vipul Narayan, Marcin Paprzycki, Tatiana Jaworska, and Maria Ganzha. A comprehensive review of deep neural networks for medical image processing: Recent developments and future opportunities. Healthcare Analytics, 4:100216, December 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Medical Image Segmentation Review: The Success of U-Net

    Reza Azad, Ehsan Khodapanah Aghdam, Amelie Rauland, Yiwei Jia, Atlas Haddadi Avval, Afshin Bozorgpour, Sanaz Karimijafarbigloo, Joseph Paul Cohen, Ehsan Adeli, and Dorit Merhof. Medical Image Segmentation Review: The Success of U-Net. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):10076– 10095, December 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Fully automatic segmentation of craniomaxillofacial CT scans for computer-assisted orthognathic surgery planning using the nnU-Net framework

    Gauthier Dot, Thomas Schouman, Guillaume Dubois, Philippe Rouch, and Laurent Gajny. Fully automatic segmentation of craniomaxillofacial CT scans for computer-assisted orthognathic surgery planning using the nnU-Net framework. European Radiology, 32(6):3639–3648, June 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Harrison, H

    K. Harrison, H. Pullen, C. Welsh, O. Oktay, J. Alvarez-Valle, and R. Jena. Machine Learning for Auto- Segmentation in Radiotherapy Planning. Clinical Oncology, 34(2):74–88, February 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    DeepRecS: From RECIST Diameters to Precise Liver Tumor Segmentation

    Yue Zhang, Chengtao Peng, Liying Peng, Yingying Xu, Lanfen Lin, Ruofeng Tong, Zhiyi Peng, Xiongwei Mao, Hongjie Hu, Yen-Wei Chen, and Jingsong Li. DeepRecS: From RECIST Diameters to Precise Liver Tumor Segmentation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(2):614–625, February 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Deep learning model for predicting the presence of stromal invasion of breast cancer on digital breast tomosynthesis

    Daiki Shimokawa, Kengo Takahashi, Ken Oba, Eichi Takaya, Takuma Usuzaki, Mizuki Kadowaki, Kurara Kawaguchi, Maki Adachi, Tomofumi Kaneno, Toshinori Fukuda, Kazuyo Yagishita, Hiroko Tsunoda, and Takuya Ueda. Deep learning model for predicting the presence of stromal invasion of breast cancer on digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiological Physics and Technol...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Radiomics model of diffusion- weighted whole-body imaging with background signal suppression (DWIBS) for predicting axillary lymph node status in breast cancer

    Takafumi Haraguchi, Yasuyuki Kobayashi, Daisuke Hirahara, Tatsuaki Kobayashi, Eichi Takaya, Mariko Takishita Nagai, Hayato Tomita, Jun Okamoto, Yoshihide Kanemaki, and Koichiro Tsugawa. Radiomics model of diffusion- weighted whole-body imaging with background signal suppression (DWIBS) for predicting axillary lymph node status in breast cancer. Journal of...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 9351. Springer Cham, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In European conference on computer vision, pages 205–218. Springer, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Attention-UNet architectures with pretrained backbones for multi-class cardiac MR image segmentation

    Niharika Das and Sujoy Das. Attention-UNet architectures with pretrained backbones for multi-class cardiac MR image segmentation. Current Problems in Cardiology, 49(1):102129, January 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Robson, Brett Marinelli, Mingqian Huang, Amish Doshi, Adam Jacobi, Chendi Cao, Katherine E

    Xueyan Mei, Zelong Liu, Philip M. Robson, Brett Marinelli, Mingqian Huang, Amish Doshi, Adam Jacobi, Chendi Cao, Katherine E. Link, Thomas Yang, Ying Wang, Hayit Greenspan, Timothy Deyer, Zahi A. Fayad, and Yang Yang. RadImageNet: An Open Radiologic Deep Learning Research Data...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Fayad, Timothy Deyer, and Xueyan Mei

    Zelong Liu, Andrew Tieu, Nikhil Patel, George Soultanidis, Louisa Deyer, Ying Wang, Sean Huver, Alexander Zhou, Yunhao Mei, Zahi A. Fayad, Timothy Deyer, and Xueyan Mei. VIS-MAE: An Efficient Self-supervised Learning Approach on Medical Image Segmentation and Classification. I...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Medical SAM Adapter: Adapting Segment Anything Model for Medical Image Segmentation, December 2023

    Junde Wu, Wei Ji, Yuanpei Liu, Huazhu Fu, Min Xu, Yanwu Xu, and Yueming Jin. Medical SAM Adapter: Adapting Segment Anything Model for Medical Image Segmentation, December 2023. arXiv:2304.12620 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Medical SAM 2: Segment medical images as video via Segment Anything Model 2, December 2024

    Jiayuan Zhu, Abdullah Hamdi, Yunli Qi, Yueming Jin, and Junde Wu. Medical SAM 2: Segment medical images as video via Segment Anything Model 2, December 2024. arXiv:2408.00874 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Causality-Inspired Single-Source Domain Generalization for Medical Image Segmentation

    Cheng Ouyang, Chen Chen, Surui Li, Zeju Li, Chen Qin, Wenjia Bai, and Daniel Rueckert. Causality-Inspired Single-Source Domain Generalization for Medical Image Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(4):1095–1106, April 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Domain Adaptation for Medical Image Analysis: A Survey

    Hao Guan and Mingxia Liu. Domain Adaptation for Medical Image Analysis: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 69(3):1173–1185, March 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Wood, Holger Roth, Andriy Myronenko, Daguang Xu, and Ziyue Xu

    Ling Zhang, Xiaosong Wang, Dong Yang, Thomas Sanford, Stephanie Harmon, Baris Turkbey, Bradford J. Wood, Holger Roth, Andriy Myronenko, Daguang Xu, and Ziyue Xu. Generalizing Deep Learning for Medical Image 10 In-context learning for medical image segmentation Figure 7: Box pl...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Morris, Moozhan Nikpanah, Arman Rahmim, Yanji Xu, Anne Pariser, Michael T

    Navid Hasani, Faraz Farhadi, Michael A. Morris, Moozhan Nikpanah, Arman Rahmim, Yanji Xu, Anne Pariser, Michael T. Collins, Ronald M. Summers, Elizabeth Jones, Eliot Siegel, and Babak Saboury. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging and its Impact on the Rare Disease Commun...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Sabuncu, John Guttag, and Adrian V

    Victor Ion Butoi, Jose Javier Gonzalez Ortiz, Tianyu Ma, Mert R. Sabuncu, John Guttag, and Adrian V . Dalca. UniverSeg: Universal Medical Image Segmentation. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 21381–21394, Paris, France, October 2023. IEEE

    2023

  12. [20]

    Pace, Hannah T

    Danielle F. Pace, Hannah T. M. Contreras, Jennifer Romanowicz, Shruti Ghelani, Imon Rahaman, Yue Zhang, Patricia Gao, Mohammad Imrul Jubair, Tom Yeh, Polina Golland, Tal Geva, Sunil Ghelani, Andrew J. Powell, and Mehdi Hedjazi Moghari. HVSMR-2.0: A 3D cardiovascular MR dataset...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Current methods in medical image segmentation

    Dzung L Pham, Chenyang Xu, and Jerry L Prince. Current methods in medical image segmentation. Annual review of biomedical engineering, 2(1):315–337, 2000. Publisher: Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way, PO Box 10139, Palo Alto, CA 94303-0139, USA

    2000

  14. [22]

    Medical image segmentation using k-means clustering and improved watershed algorithm

    HP Ng, SH Ong, KWC Foong, Poh-Sun Goh, and WL Nowinski. Medical image segmentation using k-means clustering and improved watershed algorithm. In 2006 IEEE southwest symposium on image analysis and interpretation, pages 61–65. IEEE, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    H.P. Ng, S.H. Ong, K.W.C. Foong, P.S. Goh, and W.L. Nowinski. Masseter segmentation using an improved watershed algorithm with unsupervised classification. Computers in Biology and Medicine , 38(2):171–184, February 2008. 11 In-context learning for medical image segmentation F...

    2008

  16. [24]

    Retinal Blood Vessel Segmentation Using Line Operators and Support Vector Classification

    Elisa Ricci and Renzo Perfetti. Retinal Blood Vessel Segmentation Using Line Operators and Support Vector Classification. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 26(10):1357–1365, October 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Analyzing Training Information From Random Forests for Improved Image Segmentation

    Dwarikanath Mahapatra. Analyzing Training Information From Random Forests for Improved Image Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 23(4):1504–1512, April 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Deep Neural Networks Segment Neuronal Membranes in Electron Microscopy Images

    Dan C Ciresan, Luca M Gambardella, and Alessandro Giusti. Deep Neural Networks Segment Neuronal Membranes in Electron Microscopy Images. In Proceedings of the 25th Iternational Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2843–2851, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Lungren, Shaoting Zhang, Lei Xing, Le Lu, Alan Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou

    Jieneng Chen, Jieru Mei, Xianhang Li, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Qingyue Wei, Xiangde Luo, Yutong Xie, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Matthew P. Lungren, Shaoting Zhang, Lei Xing, Le Lu, Alan Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. TransUNet: Rethinking the U-Net architecture design for medical image segm...

    2024

  20. [28]

    V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation

    Fausto Milletari, Nassir Navab, and Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In 2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV) , pages 565–571. Ieee, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Segment Anything. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages ...

    2023

  22. [30]

    A Survey on In-context Learning, October 2024

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. A Survey on In-context Learning, October 2024. arXiv:2301.00234 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Re- thinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?, October 2022

    Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Re- thinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?, October 2022. arXiv:2202.12837 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Nee- lakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, and others. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  25. [33]

    Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent, May 2023

    Johannes von Oswald, Eyvind Niklasson, Ettore Randazzo, João Sacramento, Alexander Mordvintsev, Andrey Zh- moginov, and Max Vladymyrov. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent, May 2023. arXiv:2212.07677 [cs]. 12 In-context learning for medical image segmentation

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    What makes good examples for visual in-context learning? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:17773–17794, 2023

    Yuanhan Zhang, Kaiyang Zhou, and Ziwei Liu. What makes good examples for visual in-context learning? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:17773–17794, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    van Engelen and Holger H

    Jesper E. van Engelen and Holger H. Hoos. A survey on semi-supervised learning.Machine Learning, 109(2):373– 440, February 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Learning with limited annotations: A survey on deep semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation

    Rushi Jiao, Yichi Zhang, Le Ding, Bingsen Xue, Jicong Zhang, Rong Cai, and Cheng Jin. Learning with limited annotations: A survey on deep semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 169:107840, February 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Local contrastive loss with pseudo-label based self-training for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Krishna Chaitanya, Ertunc Erdil, Neerav Karani, and Ender Konukoglu. Local contrastive loss with pseudo-label based self-training for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. Medical Image Analysis, 87:102792, July 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Uncertainty-aware multi-view co-training for semi-supervised medical image segmentation and domain adaptation

    Yingda Xia, Dong Yang, Zhiding Yu, Fengze Liu, Jinzheng Cai, Lequan Yu, Zhuotun Zhu, Daguang Xu, Alan Yuille, and Holger Roth. Uncertainty-aware multi-view co-training for semi-supervised medical image segmentation and domain adaptation. Medical Image Analysis, 65:101766, October 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    GraphCL: Graph-based Clustering for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation, November 2024

    Mengzhu Wang, Jiao Li, Houcheng Su, Nan Yin, Liang Yang, and Shen Li. GraphCL: Graph-based Clustering for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation, November 2024. arXiv:2411.13147 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sequential semi-supervised segmentation for serial electron microscopy image with small number of labels

    Eichi Takaya, Yusuke Takeichi, Mamiko Ozaki, and Satoshi Kurihara. Sequential semi-supervised segmentation for serial electron microscopy image with small number of labels. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 351:109066, March 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Maybank, and Dacheng Tao

    Jianping Gou, Baosheng Yu, Stephen J. Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Knowledge Distillation: A Survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 129(6):1789–1819, June 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Cold-start active learning for image classification

    Qiuye Jin, Mingzhi Yuan, Shiman Li, Haoran Wang, Manning Wang, and Zhijian Song. Cold-start active learning for image classification. Information Sciences, 616:16–36, November 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    A Data-Driven Solution for The Cold Start Problem in Biomedical Image Classification

    Salome Kazeminia, Miroslav Bˇrezík, Sayedali Shetab Boushehri, and Carsten Marr. A Data-Driven Solution for The Cold Start Problem in Biomedical Image Classification. In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1–5, Athens, Greece, May 2024. IEEE. 13

    2024

Pith tools

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