Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

VerSe: Integrating Multiple Queries as Prompts for Versatile Cardiac MRI Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 VerSe claims that a single segmentation model can serve both fully automatic and interactive cardiac MRI segmentation by prompting one shared backbone with object queries and click queries, and that this unified design sets new best…

desk verdict A genuinely useful unification of automatic and interactive cardiac MRI segmentation with strong Mode-3 results, though the efficiency claim leans on a favorable click-simulation protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16381 v1 pith:PNKIFHES submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CV cs.AIcs.HC

Bangwei Guo , Meng Ye , Yunhe Gao , Bingyu Xin , Leon Axel , Dimitris Metaxas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.HC
keywords cardiacMRIsegmentationinteractivemulti-querypromptingobjectqueriesclicktransformerdecodermedicalimage
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

Cardiac MRI segmentation typically splits into two unsatisfying modes: automatic models that need manual correction on basal and apical slices, and interactive click-based models that start from scratch and burn many clicks on 3D volumes. VerSe argues that one model can do both, and do each better, if the same backbone is prompted by two kinds of queries at once: a learned object query that names the target structure for automatic segmentation, and click queries that mark where a clinician would correct the current mask. The paper reports that this design outperforms specialized automatic and interactive baselines on Dice accuracy and on clicks-to-target across seven cardiac MRI datasets, and that the interactive mode generalizes to brain and knee MRI without retraining. The point matters because it suggests clinical tools could stop alternating between separate automatic and interactive systems and instead interactively refine one trustworthy initial mask.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is multi-query integration: a small set of learnable object-query vectors per target and a click-query stream that combines a sparse positional encoding of each click with a semantic feature query obtained by average-pooling a local feature patch around the click at three scales and projecting it through an MLP. These prompts are processed by a shared transformer decoder whose foreground-background masked attention forces positive clicks to attend to the current-mask foreground and negative clicks to the background, after which the updated prompts are concatenated and used as keys and values to update the image features. Multi-scale residual connections resample earlier decoder features and add them to the next scale, letting the prompts interact with features at 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 resolutions. The whole design is what lets one forward pass select an automatic object, refine it from clicks, or start interactively from an empty mask.

What would settle it

A reader study in which radiologists correct VerSe masks on the same seven datasets, with their real clicks logged; if NoC90 under real clicks moves toward SimpleClick's level or beyond, the simulated-click evaluation overstates VerSe's interaction efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a mode-unifying prompting mechanism: VerSe trains object queries (small groups of learnable vectors per anatomical target) and click queries (sparse positional encodings plus 'semantic feature queries' read from local image feature patches around each click) to jointly drive a shared UTNet encoder and a hybrid-attention transformer decoder. The model's three operating modes—automatic, automatic-then-refine, and click-only—emerge from which prompts are active, with no separate heads or weights per mode. Across seven cardiac MRI datasets, the paper reports the highest Dice scores and lowest click counts among compared methods, with Mode-2 reaching NoC90 in the 0.9-to-2.2 click range on the four bSSFP cine datasets, and Mode-3 exceeding 94% Dice at 20 clicks even on the hardest scar and edema datasets. On out-of-distribution brain and knee MRI, the click-only mode keeps an edge over baselines, supporting the paper's claim that the query-integration design generalizes beyond cardiac images.

Load-bearing premise

All measured click efficiency rests on the assumption that placing each new click at the center of the largest connected misclassified region matches how a human expert would correct the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A clinician can run automatic segmentation first and correct only the slices that fail, with Mode-2 reaching NoC85 of 0.43 on ACDC and 0.88 on M&Ms-2.
  • On the hardest scar and edema targets, pure interactive Mode-3 is the better fallback: despite starting from an empty mask, it ends at 94.2–95.0% Dice after 20 clicks, far above all compared baselines.
  • The same weights transfer across MRI contrasts and body regions: training on cardiac MRI and testing on brain tumor MRI gives 94.5% Dice in 10 clicks with VerSe, roughly 2 points above SimpleClick.
  • Because all three modes share one encoder and decoder, deployment is one model instead of two or more specialized networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the semantic feature query likely works because it gives the decoder local appearance context around a click, not just a coordinate; a testable corollary is that larger pooling windows or a different multi-scale fusion would help most on low-contrast scar targets.
  • Extension: the decoder's interchangeability of query types suggests that box, text, or scribble prompts could be added as one more query type without rearchitecting the model.
  • Extension: the reported click-efficiency numbers depend on the simulated user placing clicks at the center of the largest error region; real clinicians may click on boundaries or scattered regions, so the strongest validation would be a reader study measuring NoC90 with actual radiologist clicks.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VerSe, a unified cardiac MRI segmentation framework that jointly learns object queries and click queries as prompts for a shared transformer decoder, supporting fully automatic segmentation (Mode-1), automatic segmentation followed by interactive click refinement (Mode-2), and pure click-driven interactive segmentation (Mode-3). The architecture introduces semantic feature queries, foreground-background masked attention with separate positive and negative click branches, and residual multi-scale connections. The authors evaluate on seven cardiac MRI datasets and two out-of-distribution datasets, reporting Dice and Number-of-Clicks metrics, and claim state-of-the-art accuracy and interaction efficiency relative to RITM, iSegformer, SimpleClick, and SegNext.

Significance. If the reported results hold under fair evaluation, the multi-query integration is a useful architectural direction: it allows one model to serve both automatic and interactive workflows, and the evaluation span of nine datasets with code release is a practical strength. The consistently strong Mode-3 results on most datasets, especially at Dice(20) and NoC95 on LGE and bSSFP cardiac data, suggest the model is a competitive interactive segmenter. However, the central efficiency claim is currently supported only under a click-simulation protocol that matches VerSe's own training, and the Mode-2 comparison against click-only baselines is not apples-to-apples; these issues must be addressed before the SOTA claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Table 2] The Mode-2 results are not comparable with the interactive baselines because Mode-2 receives an automatic initial mask from object queries, while the baselines start from empty masks. For example, NoC85=0.431 on ACDC indicates that the automatic initialization already meets 85% Dice for most slices, so the reported click counts reflect automatic accuracy rather than interactive efficiency. Please either remove Mode-2 from the comparison against click-only methods, or give the baselines the same automatic initialization (e.g., an automatic model followed by click-based refinement) and report the total interaction cost including initialization.
  2. [§2.5, Tables 2 and 3] The click simulation rule—placing each new click at the center of the largest connected component of the misclassified region—is used both to train VerSe and to generate every Dice(n) and NoC number in the evaluation. The paper does not establish that this rule matches real expert correction behavior, nor that the ranking of methods is stable under other click policies. If the same rule was applied to the baselines, they are at a disadvantage because their training used different click distributions (e.g., RITM-style sampling); if not, the comparison is inconsistent. Please evaluate with at least one additional click policy (e.g., RITM-style randomized sampling from error regions, boundary-biased clicks, or scattered misclassified points) and report the ranking under each policy, and temper the efficiency claims accordingly.
  3. [§3.1, Table 2] The text states that on the M&Ms dataset VerSe achieves a Dice(1) score of 89.757%, surpassing SimpleClick (85.335%) and SegNext (85.197%), but Table 2 lists 87.460 for VerSe (Mode-3) on M&Ms; the 89.757 value is the ACDC Dice(1). This misreported number appears in a central comparison passage and should be corrected, and the surrounding discussion should be checked for similar transcription errors.
  4. [§3.1, Table 2] The claim that VerSe (Mode-3) 'consistently achieves the best Dice scores and lower interaction costs among six out of seven datasets' is not fully supported by the per-metric results. On MyoPS++ (T2), SimpleClick has higher Dice(1) (79.231 vs. 74.096) and lower NoC90 (6.253 vs. 7.772), even though VerSe has higher Dice(20) and lower NoC95. Please report which specific metrics are best per dataset or use a composite metric that accounts for trade-offs among Dice(1), Dice(20), NoC85, NoC90, and NoC95.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Keywords] There are typos: 'mutiple queries' should be 'multiple queries', and the keyword 'Mutiple Prompts' should be 'Multiple Prompts'.
  2. [Table 1] The text says that for M&Ms-2 only long-axis (LA) cine images were used, but Table 1 lists M&Ms-2 as bSSFP without noting the LA/SA distinction; please clarify in the table or caption.
  3. [References] References [3] and [4] appear to be the same paper (Bernard et al., IEEE TMI 2018); please merge or remove the duplicate.
  4. [§3, Evaluation Metrics] No standard deviations or significance tests are reported for the main Dice and NoC comparisons; adding results over multiple runs (or at least a reproducibility statement) would strengthen the SOTA claims.
  5. [Figure 3(a)] The label 'Sematic feature query encoder' contains a typo; it should read 'Semantic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: VerSe's accuracy and efficiency claims are measured on held-out test sets and do not reduce to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

VerSe's central claims (Tables 2 and 3) are empirical measurements: Dice, NoC, and Dice(n) values are computed on held-out ACDC, M&Ms, M&Ms-2, MyoPS++, LASCarQS++, OAIZIB, and BraTS test splits using standard metrics and a standard BCE-plus-Dice training loss. No parameter fitted to the evaluation set is renamed as a prediction; the model weights are trained with a fixed loss and evaluated on unseen slices. The click simulation policy described in Sec. 2.5 (placing new clicks at the center of the largest connected component of misclassified regions) is used for both training and evaluation, which is a potential protocol-validity concern about external generalization, not a circular reduction: the reported numbers are still measured outcomes, and the paper's efficiency claims are explicitly conditional on that protocol. Self-citations (UTNet [16] and MedFormer [15]) appear as an architecture component and a baseline, respectively, but the reported advantages do not rest on those citations: UTNet serves as an image encoder whose output is compared through measured Dice, and MedFormer is a baseline that VerSe outperforms on most datasets in Table 2. There is no invocation of a same-author uniqueness theorem, no fitted constant that forces a target equation by construction, and no renamed known empirical pattern presented as a derivation. Consequently, no circular step is identifiable in the paper's derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters and domain assumptions. The most consequential is the click simulation rule, which directly shapes every interactive efficiency number. The architectural components are new but only validated by internal ablations.

free parameters (6)
  • loss weights λce, λdice = 5.0
    Chosen in Sec. 2.5; no ablation or justification for the value.
  • click query padding size N1 = 24
    Set in Sec. 2.3; arbitrary, affects padding of positive and negative click queries.
  • number of decoder layers L = 2 (6 total)
    Sec. 2.5; no sensitivity analysis.
  • click window radius r = not specified
    Used in Eq. (2) for semantic feature query extraction; value never given, so a free and unstated parameter.
  • click count per mode = Mode-1 and Mode-2: 2 clicks; Mode-3: 3 clicks
    Sec. 2.5; the number of simulated clicks per iteration is a modeling choice.
  • click simulation rule = center of largest misclassified connected component
    Sec. 2.5; a proxy for human clicks that can favor the method.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The click simulation strategy approximates real user behavior.
    All interactive results rely on this; Sec. 2.5.
  • domain assumption The combined cardiac training set (bSSFP, T2, LGE) with 2D slices is a sufficient distribution for training a generalizable interactive segmenter.
    Sec. 3, Datasets.
  • domain assumption UTNet is an appropriate image encoder for cardiac MRI and its features can be shared across modes.
    Sec. 2.5; this is a design choice based on prior work.
  • standard math The evaluation metrics (Dice at click counts, NoC thresholds) are standard and not manipulated.
    Sec. 3; these are conventional in interactive segmentation literature.
invented entities (2)
  • Semantic Feature Query X_f
    purpose: Encodes local image features around each click via average pooling and MLP, providing semantic context for click prompts.
    Only supported by the in-paper ablation (Table 4); no external validation or theory.
  • Foreground-background masked attention with separate positive and negative click branches
    purpose: Forces positive clicks to attend only to foreground pixels and negative clicks to background pixels, improving refinement.
    Ablation A2 shows it helps, but this is in-paper evidence only.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VerSe: Integrating Multiple Queries as Prompts for Versatile Cardiac MRI Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNKIFHES

@misc{pith2026241216381,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VerSe: Integrating Multiple Queries as Prompts for Versatile Cardiac MRI Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNKIFHES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16381}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the advances in learning-based image segmentation approach, the accurate segmentation of cardiac structures from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains a critical challenge. While existing automatic segmentation methods have shown promise, they still require extensive manual corrections of the segmentation results by human experts, particularly in complex regions such as the basal and apical parts of the heart. Recent efforts have been made on developing interactive image segmentation methods that enable human-in-the-loop learning. However, they are semi-automatic and inefficient, due to their reliance on click-based prompts, especially for 3D cardiac MRI volumes. To address these limitations, we propose VerSe, a Versatile Segmentation framework to unify automatic and interactive segmentation through mutiple queries. Our key innovation lies in the joint learning of object and click queries as prompts for a shared segmentation backbone. VerSe supports both fully automatic segmentation, through object queries, and interactive mask refinement, by providing click queries when needed. With the proposed integrated prompting scheme, VerSe demonstrates significant improvement in performance and efficiency over existing methods, on both cardiac MRI and out-of-distribution medical imaging datasets. The code is available at https://github.com/bangwayne/Verse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16381 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the proposed versatile segmentation framework. Our model ac￾cepts an object query, such as left ventricle, to automatically segment the target in the image. If the initial segmentation is unsatisfactory, users can refine the mask by providing corrective clicks until the final output mask can meet clinical accuracy. used architecture and perform well on both 2D and 3D images, but struggle with intrica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the VerSe architecture. In stage I, object queries are used to au￾tomatically segment a target in the image. In stage II, user provides clicks as prompts to refine the initial segmentation mask. VerSe also supports a pure interactive mode, where the initial mask is empty and the object queries aren’t activated. The image encoder, transformer decoder and mask decoder are shared across all stages. Imple￾me… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Process of generating semantic feature query Xf0 for a specified click point P0 at scale s. The original click P0 is mapped to the coordinates P ′ 0 on the down￾scaling feature map. A feature patch centered at P ′ 0 undergoes average pooling, and the resulting feature is transformed via an MLP to produce Xf0. (b) Transformer decoder at the l-th layer. Object queries Xol, positive click queries Xpl and negative c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence analysis for models tested on four types of segmentation targets. The Combined bSSFP Dataset, including ACDC, M&Ms, M&Ms-2, and MyoPS++ (bSSFP), focuses on LV, Myo, and RV structures. VerSe demonstrates consistent ac￾curacy improvements across all tasks as …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Segmentation results of VerSe on different medical image segmentation tasks. First row: Automatic segmentation of three structures on cardiac cine MRI. Second row: Interactive refinement of myocardial edema segmentation on cardiac T2-weighted MRI. Third row: Interactiv…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Medical image analysis52, 109– 118 (2019)

    Ambellan, F., Tack, A., Ehlke, M., Zachow, S.: Automated segmentation of knee bone and cartilage combining statistical shape knowledge and convolutional neural networks: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Medical image analysis52, 109– 118 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    Baid, U., Ghodasara, S., Mohan, S., Bilello, M., Calabrese, E., Colak, E., Farahani, K., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Kitamura, F.C., Pati, S., et al.: The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classifica- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  3. [4]

    Bernard, O., Lalande, A., Zotti, C., Cervenansky, F., Yang, X., Heng, P.A., Cetin, I., Lekadir, K., Camara, O., Ballester, M.A.G., et al.: Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE transactions on medical imaging37(11), 2514–2525 (2018)

    2018

  4. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging40(12), 3543–3554 (2021)

    Campello, V.M., Gkontra, P., Izquierdo, C., Martin-Isla, C., Sojoudi, A., Full, P.M., Maier-Hein, K., Zhang, Y., He, Z., Ma, J., et al.: Multi-centre, multi-vendor and multi-disease cardiac segmentation: the m&ms challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging40(12), 3543–3554 (2021)

    2021

  5. [6]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Cao, H., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Jiang, D., Zhang, X., Tian, Q., Wang, M.: Swin- unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 205–218. Springer (2022)

    2022

  6. [7]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., Zagoruyko, S.: End- to-end object detection with transformers. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 213–229. Springer (2020)

    2020

  7. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 (2021)

    Chen, J., Lu, Y., Yu, Q., Luo, X., Adeli, E., Wang, Y., Lu, L., Yuille, A.L., Zhou, Y.:Transunet:Transformersmakestrongencodersformedicalimagesegmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Cheng, B., Misra, I., Schwing, A.G., Kirillov, A., Girdhar, R.: Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1290–1299 (2022)

    2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Cheng, H.K., Oh, S.W., Price, B., Lee, J.Y., Schwing, A.: Putting the object back into video object segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3151–3161 (2024) 14 F. Author et al

    2024

  2. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2023)

    Ding, W., Li, L., Qiu, J., Wang, S., Huang, L., Chen, Y., Yang, S., Zhuang, X.: Aligning multi-sequence cmr towards fully automated myocardial pathology seg- mentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2023)

    2023

  3. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Ding, Y., Li, L., Wang, W., Yang, Y.: Clustering propagation for universal medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3357–3369 (2024)

    2024

  4. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    Dosovitskiy, A.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recogni- tion at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  5. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Gao, Y.: Training like a medical resident: Context-prior learning toward universal medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11194–11204 (2024)

    2024

  6. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00131 (2022)

    Gao, Y., Zhou, M., Liu, D., Yan, Z., Zhang, S., Metaxas, D.N.: A data-scalable transformer for medical image segmentation: architecture, model efficiency, and benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00131 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Gao, Y., Zhou, M., Metaxas, D.N.: Utnet: a hybrid transformer architecture for medicalimagesegmentation.In:MedicalImageComputingandComputerAssisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September27–October1,2021,Proceedings,PartIII24.pp.6...

    2021

  8. [17]

    He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  9. [18]

    Nature methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  10. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 4015–4026 (2023)

    2023

  11. [20]

    Medical Image Analysis87, 102808 (2023)

    Li, L., Wu, F., Wang, S., Luo, X., Martín-Isla, C., Zhai, S., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Ankenbrand, M.J., et al.: Myops: A benchmark of myocardial pathol- ogy segmentation combining three-sequence cardiac magnetic resonance images. Medical Image Analysis87, 102808 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

    Medical image analysis60, 101595 (2020)

    Li, L., Wu, F., Yang, G., Xu, L., Wong, T., Mohiaddin, R., Firmin, D., Keegan, J., Zhuang, X.: Atrial scar quantification via multi-scale cnn in the graph-cuts framework. Medical image analysis60, 101595 (2020)

    2020

  13. [22]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part VI 24

    Li, L., Zimmer, V.A., Schnabel, J.A., Zhuang, X.: Atrialgeneral: domain gener- alization for left atrial segmentation of multi-center lge mris. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, Septem...

    2021

  14. [23]

    Medical image analysis76, 102303 (2022)

    Li, L., Zimmer, V.A., Schnabel, J.A., Zhuang, X.: Atrialjsqnet: a new framework for joint segmentation and quantification of left atrium and scars incorporating spatial and shape information. Medical image analysis76, 102303 (2022)

    2022

  15. [24]

    Medical image analysis77, 102360 (2022)

    Li, L., Zimmer, V.A., Schnabel, J.A., Zhuang, X.: Medical image analysis on left atrial lge mri for atrial fibrillation studies: A review. Medical image analysis77, 102360 (2022)

    2022

  16. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems pp

    Lin, J., Chen, J., Yang, K., Roitberg, A., Li, S., Li, Z., Li, S.: Adaptiveclick: Click- aware transformer with adaptive focal loss for interactive image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems pp. 1–15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2024...

    2024

  17. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Chen, J.N., Xiao, J., Lu, Y., A Landman, B., Yuan, Y., Yuille, A., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z.: Clip-driven universal model for organ segmentation and tumor detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 21152–21164 (2023)

    2023

  18. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Liu, Q., Cho, J., Bansal, M., Niethammer, M.: Rethinking interactive image seg- mentation with low latency high quality and diverse prompts. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3773–3782 (2024)

    2024

  19. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Liu, Q., Xu, Z., Bertasius, G., Niethammer, M.: Simpleclick: Interactive image segmentation with simple vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 22290–22300 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Liu, Q., Xu, Z., Jiao, Y., Niethammer, M.: isegformer: interactive segmentation via transformers with application to 3d knee mr images. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 464–474. Springer (2022)

    2022

  21. [30]

    In: 2016 fourth international confer- ence on 3D vision (3DV)

    Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: 2016 fourth international confer- ence on 3D vision (3DV). pp. 565–571. Ieee (2016)

    2016

  22. [31]

    Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging17(8), e016523 (2024)

    Pennell, D.J., Mohiaddin, R.H.: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Past, present, and future. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging17(8), e016523 (2024)

    2024

  23. [32]

    Medical image analysis84, 102694 (2023)

    Qiu, J., Li, L., Wang, S., Zhang, K., Chen, Y., Yang, S., Zhuang, X.: Myops-net: Myocardial pathology segmentation with flexible combination of multi-sequence cmr images. Medical image analysis84, 102694 (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    Plos one 17(9), e0274491 (2022)

    Romero R, W.A., Viallon, M., Spaltenstein, J., Petrusca, L., Bernard, O., Belle, L., Clarysse, P., Croisille, P.: Cmrsegtools: An open-source software enabling repro- ducible research in segmentation of acute myocardial infarct in cmr images. Plos one 17(9), e0274491 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18....

    2015

  26. [35]

    In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Im- age Processing (ICIP)

    Sofiiuk, K., Petrov, I.A., Konushin, A.: Reviving iterative training with mask guid- ance for interactive segmentation. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Im- age Processing (ICIP). pp. 3141–3145. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  27. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Xu, N., Price, B., Cohen, S., Yang, J., Huang, T.S.: Deep interactive object se- lection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 373–381 (2016)

    2016

  28. [37]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Yan, K., Yin, X., Xia, Y., Wang, F., Wang, S., Gao, Y., Yao, J., Li, C., Bai, X., Zhou, J., et al.: Liver tumor screening and diagnosis in ct with pixel-lesion- patient network. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 72–...

    2023

  29. [38]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2023)

    Zhou, H.Y., Guo, J., Zhang, Y., Han, X., Yu, L., Wang, L., Yu, Y.: nnformer: Volumetric medical image segmentation via a 3d transformer. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2023)

    2023

  30. [39]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence 41(12), 2933–2946 (2019)

    Zhuang, X.: Multivariate mixture model for myocardial segmentation combining multi-source images. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence 41(12), 2933–2946 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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