Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Modality-Projection Universal Model for Comprehensive Full-Body Medical Imaging Segmentation

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a single universal segmentation model can match or beat per-modality specialist models by projecting shared tissue features into modality-specific convolution kernels, demonstrated on CT, MR, and PET whole-body and brain…

desk verdict Useful released multi-modality segmentation model; headline comparison is confounded and metabolic analysis needs statistical cleanup. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19026 v1 pith:YOJDMGHX submitted 2024-12-26 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Yixin Chen , Lin Gao , Yajuan Gao , Rui Wang , Jingge Lian , Xiangxi Meng , Yanhua Duan , Leiying Chai
show 3 more authors
Hongbin Han Zhaoping Cheng Zhaoheng Xie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords universalsegmentationmodelmodalityprojectionmulti-modalitymedicalimagingfull-bodyanatomyCTbrainintracranialhemorrhagePET/CTmetabolicconnectivityinterpretablesaliencymaps
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 introduces a universal medical image segmentation model trained once on CT, MR, and PET data from 861 subjects, able to identify 215 anatomical regions including 83 brain regions. Its central claim is that a modality-projection strategy, which generates convolution kernels tailored to the input modality from shared latent tissue features, outperforms both mixing all modalities into one model and training separate models per modality. The reported best Dice scores are 0.7751 for MRI body, 0.8517 for CT body, and 0.7419 for CT brain, with the projection strategy ahead of all baselines under both mixed and modality-specific strategies. The paper also argues the model aids clinical tasks, improving junior radiologists' intracranial-hemorrhage region accuracy from roughly 57–75 percent to 92.9–96.4 percent, and supports whole-body PET/CT analysis of altered metabolic correlations in pediatric epilepsy. These results back the paper's claim that one projection-based model can serve identification, diagnosis, and analysis across modalities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Modality Projection Controller, which assumes each tissue has a high-dimensional latent feature vector projected into each modality's feature space by a modality-specific projection matrix. The projected modality features are passed through a multi-layer perceptron that generates convolutional kernels for that modality, and these kernels feed a controller-based convolution branch running in parallel with a fixed-kernel branch inside each dual-branch block. This lets the network keep shared, modality-invariant features while dynamically adapting its feature extraction to each input modality, and the controller-generated kernel maps double as per-layer saliency visualizations.

What would settle it

Run the same training pipeline with the controller-based convolution branch replaced by fixed kernels of matched parameter count while keeping the dual-branch structure, data, and training schedule identical; if the Dice scores on CT body, MRI body, and CT brain stay within noise of 0.8517, 0.7751, and 0.7419, the projection mechanism is not the driver of the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a modality-projection training strategy, embodied in the MPUM architecture, is the superior way to build a multi-modality universal segmentation model. In the paper's comparison, the projection strategy outperformed all other approaches on Dice and surface Dice for MRI body, CT body, CT brain, and PET body segmentation, with the largest apparent gains on CT brain segmentation where the projection strategy reached 0.7419 Dice versus 0.6540 for the best alternative strategy. The paper also shows that training on all three modalities together improves each modality's segmentation relative to training on CT alone, and that the controller-based convolution branch produces layer-wise saliency maps, giving interpretability throughout the network rather than only at the final decision layer.

Load-bearing premise

The measured superiority is attributed to the projection mechanism, but the experiments never isolate that mechanism from the rest of the architecture, so a different cause, such as the dual-branch design or parameter count, could explain the higher Dice scores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a single trained model can replace separate per-modality segmentation pipelines for whole-body and brain anatomy, reducing storage and deployment overhead.
  • CT brain segmentation of 83 regions would become practical for emergency settings, where MRI is slower and less accessible, supporting tasks such as hemorrhage localization and ventricle identification.
  • Whole-body ROI identification would make large-scale PET/CT metabolic connectivity analysis feasible, enabling studies of brain-body associations in systemic diseases.
  • The controller-based convolution design would supply built-in, layer-wise saliency maps for every predicted category, reducing reliance on post-hoc gradient-based explanation methods.
  • Training with all three modalities together appears to lift performance on each modality, implying that multi-modality data is beneficial rather than merely a robustness exercise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fair test of the paper's mechanism would apply the projection strategy to each baseline architecture, or ablate the controller branch while holding the dual-branch structure fixed, since the current comparison only tests the projection label against complete architectures and leaves the mechanism confounded with the architecture.
  • If the projection mechanism generalizes, it should transfer to other modality families, such as ultrasound, pathology slides, or combined PET/MR, where a shared latent tissue representation across sensors could be learned from paired or unpaired data.
  • The reported epilepsy findings, centered on the right anterior temporal lobe and a pallidum-to-spine metabolic link, are hypothesis-generating; a confirmatory study with larger cohorts and correction for multiple comparisons would test whether these correlations are reproducible biomarkers.
  • A testable extension would vary the number of external pre-trained feature sources used in the latent reconstruction step and measure whether segmentation stability and Dice scores track that variation, which would clarify the role of the external anchors in the projection theory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Modality Projection Universal Model (MPUM), a 3D segmentation model trained on CT, MR, and PET data to identify 215 anatomical structures, including 83 brain regions. MPUM uses dual-branch blocks with a controller-based convolution layer intended to realize a 'modality-projection' principle. The paper reports that MPUM outperforms UNet, CDUM, PCNet, and STUNet under mixed and modality-specific training strategies on Dice and surface Dice, and presents three application cases: anatomical identification, intracranial hemorrhage aided diagnosis, and metabolic association analysis in pediatric epilepsy via PET/CT. It also claims full-layer saliency map interpretability. Code and model weights are stated to be publicly available.

Significance. If the central performance claim is validated, MPUM would be a practically valuable universal segmentation model with unusually broad category coverage across three modalities, and the released code and weights would support reproducibility and downstream clinical research. The three clinical applications, particularly the brain–body metabolic association analysis, are potentially novel and of translational interest. However, the study's scientific contribution hinges on demonstrating that the 'modality-projection strategy' itself causes the reported improvements, and that evidence is currently missing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Fig. 2a] The headline claim that 'our projection strategy outperformed all other approaches' is confounded because the projection strategy is instantiated only as the complete MPUM architecture, while the mixed and specific strategies are applied to UNet, CDUM, PCNet, and STUNet. No configuration trains MPUM under the mixed or specific strategy, and no configuration removes or ablates the controller-based branch while keeping everything else fixed. Therefore the observed Dice differences cannot be attributed to the projection strategy rather than to the larger architecture or the changed training distribution. This is a load-bearing omission for the paper's central claim; a same-architecture ablation or a projection-strategy adaptation of the baseline models is required.
  2. [§2.1, Fig. 2a] The reported performance comparisons lack any measure of variability. The numbers in Fig. 2a are single Dice/surface Dice values with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and the margins are small in the MRI body and CT body tasks (e.g., MRI body Dice 0.7751 vs. 0.7627; CT body Dice 0.8517 vs. 0.8462). Without repeated runs or statistical testing, these differences are within the range of typical segmentation variability and do not establish superiority. The authors should report at least multiple-seed variance and ideally a paired significance test across the same test subjects.
  3. [§4.4 vs. §4.5, Eqs. (1)–(6)] The modality-projection theory is not actually implemented as stated. Equations (1)–(4) present a derivation in which latent features are reconstructed by aggregating inverse-projected modality and external-model features (Eq. 4), and external models such as CLIP and BioCLIP are invoked as stabilizing anchors. In contrast, the architecture in Eqs. (5)–(6) uses a learned latent vector T, a projection matrix Pm, and an MLP-based feature-operator generator; no inverse projection, no aggregation over external models, and no CLIP/BioCLIP embeddings appear in the implementation. The theory is therefore a post-hoc framing rather than a derivation, and the 'controller-based convolutional layers' are described as non-parametric even though the kernel generator contains learned MLP parameters. The authors should either implement the inverse-projection aggregation or explicitly reframe the projection equations as an analogy, and then provide an ablation that isolates the proposed mechanism.
  4. [§2.3 and §4.7, Eq. (10)] The metabolic association analysis tests 20,503 pairs and reports 228 brain–brain and 14 brain–body pairs as significant at p < 0.001. Under independence, roughly 20 false positives are expected at this threshold, and the ROI correlations are not independent, yet no multiple-comparison correction (Bonferroni, FDR, or permutation-based control) is reported. The Fisher z-test in Eq. (10) is applied naively to each pair. The claims in Case 3 require correction for multiple testing, or at least a sensitivity analysis. Additionally, the sample sizes are inconsistent: the text and Methods state control n=33 and patient n=55, while Fig. 4's caption reports control n=22 and patient n=50, and Section 4.1 states 50 patients and 22 controls. These numbers must be reconciled because the z-statistic in Eq. (10) is directly sensitive to them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and repeated words, including 'seversal designs' in the Introduction, 'hemorrage' in the Section 2.2 heading, 'muptiple' in Section 2.2, 'from from' in Section 4.7, 'cereral' in Section 2.3, and 'universe model' in Section 3.4. The manuscript should be carefully edited.
  2. [References] Reference [54] appears in the reference list as an incomplete citation, and references [55]–[63] are listed but never explicitly cited in the main text. Please add the missing citations or remove the entries.
  3. [§2.2] The ICH diagnostic accuracy study uses only 28 cases and 6 readers, and the reported accuracy improvement for junior radiologists (e.g., from 71.4% to 96.4% in one reader) is presented without any statistical test, confidence interval, or reader-level analysis. Please add at least a paired test or effect-size estimate to support the claimed 'significant improvement' in diagnostic accuracy.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption states 'The black region displays a progression of saliency maps,' but the figure panels appear to be grayscale or color; the wording should be clarified, and the saliency maps would benefit from a color scale or normalization description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MPUM's reported segmentation gains rest on external benchmarks, and the modality-projection equations are not used to derive the measured Dice scores.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison (MPUM vs. CDUM, PCNet, STUNet, and UNet on shared CT/MR/PET evaluations), not a quantity predicted from a fitted parameter. The modality-projection equations (Eqs. 1-5) define the architecture's intended latent/projection structure; they do not by construction produce the reported Dice or surface Dice values, which come from external datasets and independent baselines. The implementation's replacement of the inverse-projection aggregation (Eqs. 2-4) with a learned controller (Eq. 6) is a theory-to-implementation gap, but it is not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is equivalent to its input by definition. Self-citations (PCNet, LUCIDA, BraSEDA) appear as background or as comparison baselines, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or as justifications of MPUM's superiority. The main experimental weakness -- the projection strategy is instantiated only as the full MPUM without an ablation that isolates the projection mechanism -- is a confound or support issue rather than a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claim depends on preprocessing constants, unspecified latent dimensions, and a conceptual latent-feature model that is not instantiated in the architecture. The metabolic analysis further depends on a nominal significance threshold with no multiplicity control.

free parameters (5)
  • MR normalization divisor = 3000
    Hand-chosen scaling for MR voxel values in preprocessing (Sec 4.3.1); affects input distribution but not the central mechanism.
  • PET SUV normalization divisor = 20
    Hand-chosen scaling for PET SUV values in preprocessing (Sec 4.3.1).
  • Patch size and resolution = 128^3 voxels, 2mm isotropic
    Preprocessing choice defining the input context and receptive field (Sec 4.3.1).
  • Latent feature dimension N = unspecified
    Architectural hyperparameter for the modality projection controller (Sec 4.5); dimension of per-category latent vectors is not given.
  • Significance threshold for metabolic pairs = p<0.001
    Nominal threshold chosen in Case 3 (Sec 2.3) without multiple-comparison correction, inflating the number of reported significant pairs.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Each tissue has a high-dimensional latent feature T linearly projected to modality space via P_m (Eq 1).
    Introduced in Sec 4.4 as the core principle; no empirical validation that such a linear T exists or that the projection is linear.
  • ad hoc to paper External model embeddings (CLIP, BioCLIP) behave as projections of the same latent tissue feature (Eq 3).
    Sec 4.4; CLIP is trained on text-image pairs, not medical volumes, and no evidence links its embedding space to tissue latent features.
  • standard math P_m is invertible, allowing T = M_m * P_m^{-1} (Eq 2).
    Sec 4.4; standard linear algebra, but P_m is non-square (dT x dm), so the inverse is not defined.
  • domain assumption DAP labels and MOOSE-derived brain labels are accurate ground truth after radiologist correction.
    Sec 4.1; the 83 brain region labels used for training and evaluation come from the authors' own pipeline, and their accuracy is assumed.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent tissue feature vector T
    purpose: Conceptual anchor for the modality-projection theory (Eq 1-4)
    T is never directly measured or validated; the implemented controller uses learned per-category embeddings, so T is a post-hoc narrative device rather than an independently verified entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modality-Projection Universal Model for Comprehensive Full-Body Medical Imaging Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YOJDMGHX

@misc{pith2026241219026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modality-Projection Universal Model for Comprehensive Full-Body Medical Imaging Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YOJDMGHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19026}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of deep learning in medical imaging has shown great promise for enhancing diagnostic, therapeutic, and research outcomes. However, applying universal models across multiple modalities remains challenging due to the inherent variability in data characteristics. This study aims to introduce and evaluate a Modality Projection Universal Model (MPUM). MPUM employs a novel modality-projection strategy, which allows the model to dynamically adjust its parameters to optimize performance across different imaging modalities. The MPUM demonstrated superior accuracy in identifying anatomical structures, enabling precise quantification for improved clinical decision-making. It also identifies metabolic associations within the brain-body axis, advancing research on brain-body physiological correlations. Furthermore, MPUM's unique controller-based convolution layer enables visualization of saliency maps across all network layers, significantly enhancing the model's interpretability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing (2024)

    Chen, Y., Gao, Y., Zhu, L., Shao, W., Lu, Y., Han, H., Xie, Z.: PCNet: Prior Cate- gory Network for CT Universal Segmentation Model. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12306 (2023)

    Ma, J., Wang, B.: Segment anything in med- ical images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12306 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Radi- ology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5) (2023)

    Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.-C., Meyer, M.T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A.W., Heye, T., Boll, D.T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., et al.: TotalSegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images. Radi- ology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5) (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19492 (2024)

    D’Antonoli, T.A., Berger, L.K., Indrakanti, A.K., Vishwanathan, N., Weiß, J., Jung, M., Berkarda, Z., Rau, A., Reisert, M., K¨ ustner, T., et al.: TotalSegmentator MRI: Sequence- Independent Segmentation of 59 Anatomical Structures in MR images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19492 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13375 (2023)

    Jaus, A., Seibold, C., Hermann, K., Wal- ter, A., Giske, K., Haubold, J., Kleesiek, J., Stiefelhagen, R.: Towards unifying anatomy segmentation: automated generation of a full- body CT dataset via knowledge aggregation and anatomical guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13375 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    Qu, C., Zhang, T., Qiao, H., Tang, Y., Yuille, A.L., Zhou, Z., et al.: Abdomenatlas- 8k: Annotating 8,000 CT volumes for multi- organ segmentation in three weeks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05231 (2024)

    Grauw, M., Scholten, E.T., Smit, E., Rut- ten, M., Prokop, M., Ginneken, B., Hering, 16 A.: The ULS23 Challenge: a Baseline Model and Benchmark Dataset for 3D Universal Lesion Segmentation in Computed Tomogra- phy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05231 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

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

    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

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2304

    Huang, Z., Wang, H., Deng, Z., Ye, J., Su, Y., Sun, H., He, J., Gu, Y., Gu, L., Zhang, S., Qiao, Y.: STU-Net: Scalable and Trans- ferable Medical Image Segmentation Models Empowered by Large-Scale Supervised Pre- training (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2304. 06716

    2023

  2. [10]

    In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp

    Chen, Y., Meng, X., Wang, Y., Zeng, S., Liu, X., Xie, Z.: LUCIDA: Low-Dose Universal- Tissue CT Image Domain Adaptation for Medical Segmentation. In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 393–402 (2024). Springer

    2024

  3. [11]

    Nature machine intelligence6(3), 354–367 (2024)

    Pai, S., Bontempi, D., Hadzic, I., Prudente, V., Sokaˇ c, M., Chaunzwa, T.L., Bernatz, S., Hosny, A., Mak, R.H., Birkbak, N.J., et al.: Foundation model for cancer imaging biomarkers. Nature machine intelligence6(3), 354–367 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., Hin- ton, G.: A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1597–1607 (2020). PMLR

    2020

  5. [13]

    Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems 33, 9912–9924 (2020)

    Caron, M., Misra, I., Mairal, J., Goyal, P., Bojanowski, P., Joulin, A.: Unsupervised learning of visual features by contrasting cluster assignments. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems 33, 9912–9924 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Dwibedi, D., Aytar, Y., Tompson, J., Ser- manet, P., Zisserman, A.: With a little help from my friends: Nearest-neighbor con- trastive learning of visual representations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 9588–9597 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Archives of Com- putational Methods in Engineering 31(3), 1701–1719 (2024)

    Upadhyay, A.K., Bhandari, A.K.: Advances in Deep Learning Models for Resolving Med- ical Image Segmentation Data Scarcity Prob- lem: A Topical Review. Archives of Com- putational Methods in Engineering 31(3), 1701–1719 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Nature Computational Science, 1–2 (2024)

    Yang, J.: Multi-task learning for medical foundation models. Nature Computational Science, 1–2 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Scientific Data 9(1), 601 (2022)

    Gatidis, S., Hepp, T., Fr¨ uh, M., La Foug` ere, C., Nikolaou, K., Pfannenberg, C., Sch¨ olkopf, B., K¨ ustner, T., Cyran, C., Rubin, D.: A whole-body FDG-PET/CT dataset with manually annotated tumor lesions. Scientific Data 9(1), 601 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17183

    Zhao, Z., Zhang, Y., Wu, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Xie, W.: One Model to Rule them All: Towards Universal Segmenta- tion for Medical Images with Text Prompts (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17183

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bone Research 11(1), 36 (2023)

    Lu, W., Duan, Y., Li, K., Qiu, J., Cheng, Z.: Glucose uptake and distribution across the human skeleton using state-of-the-art total- body PET/CT. Bone Research 11(1), 36 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    In: Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-assisted intervention– MICCAI 2015: 18th International Confer- ence, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, pp

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-assisted intervention– MICCAI 2015: 18th International Confer- ence, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 1...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Stroke 53(7), 282– 361 (2022)

    Greenberg, S.M., Ziai, W.C., Cordonnier, C., Dowlatshahi, D., Francis, B., Goldstein, J.N., Hemphill III, J.C., Johnson, R., Keigher, K.M., Mack, W.J., et al.: 2022 Guideline for the management of patients with sponta- neous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline 17 from the Am...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Stroke 46(7), 2032–2060 (2015)

    Hemphill III, J.C., Greenberg, S.M., Ander- son, C.S., Becker, K., Bendok, B.R., Cush- man, M., Fung, G.L., Goldstein, J.N., Mac- donald, R.L., Mitchell, P.H.,et al.: Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracere- bral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare profession...

    2015

  15. [23]

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

    Sanner, A.P., Grauhan, N.F., Brockmann, M.A., Othman, A.E., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Voxel Scene Graph for Intracranial Hem- orrhage. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, pp. 519–529 (2024). Springer

    2024

  16. [24]

    Journal of stroke 19(1), 3 (2017)

    An, S.J., Kim, T.J., Yoon, B.-W.: Epidemi- ology, risk factors, and clinical features of intracerebral hemorrhage: an update. Journal of stroke 19(1), 3 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Journal of the neurological sciences 398, 54–66 (2019)

    Pinho, J., Costa, A.S., Ara´ ujo, J.M., Amorim, J.M., Ferreira, C.: Intracerebral hemorrhage outcome: a comprehensive update. Journal of the neurological sciences 398, 54–66 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Critical care medicine 36(1), 172–175 (2008)

    Moon, J.-S., Janjua, N., Ahmed, S., Kirmani, J.F., Harris-Lane, P., Jacob, M., Ezzeddine, M.A., Qureshi, A.I.: Prehospital neurologic deterioration in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Critical care medicine 36(1), 172–175 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Insights into imaging 13(1), 180 (2022)

    Hillal, A., Ullberg, T., Ramgren, B., Wass´ elius, J.: Computed tomography in acute intracerebral hemorrhage: neuroimag- ing predictors of hematoma expansion and outcome. Insights into imaging 13(1), 180 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Applied Sciences 10(21), 7577 (2020)

    Sage, A., Badura, P.: Intracranial hemor- rhage detection in head CT using double- branch convolutional neural network, support vector machine, and random forest. Applied Sciences 10(21), 7577 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    American jour- nal of neuroradiology 27(3), 666–670 (2006)

    Zimmerman, R.D., Maldjian, J.A., Brun, N., Horvath, B., Skolnick, B.: Radiologic esti- mation of hematoma volume in intracerebral hemorrhage trial by CT scan. American jour- nal of neuroradiology 27(3), 666–670 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03281 (2023)

    Li, X., Luo, G., Wang, K., Wang, H., Liu, J., Liang, X., Jiang, J., Song, Z., Zheng, C., Chi, H., et al.: The state-of-the-art 3D anisotropic intracranial hemorrhage segmentation on non-contrast head CT: The INSTANCE challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03281 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(3), 1140–1151 (2021)

    Li, X., Luo, G., Wang, W., Wang, K., Gao, Y., Li, S.: Hematoma expansion context guided intracranial hemorrhage segmentation and uncertainty estimation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(3), 1140–1151 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 7, 785–798 (2012)

    Prakash, K.B., Zhou, S., Morgan, T.C., Han- ley, D.F., Nowinski, W.L.: Segmentation and quantification of intra-ventricular/cerebral hemorrhage in CT scans by modified distance regularized level set evolution technique. International journal of computer assisted radiology and ...

    2012

  25. [33]

    Jour- nal of the Korean Physical Society 79(3), 321–327 (2021)

    Kim, K.H., Koo, H.-W., Lee, B.-J., Yoon, S.- W., Sohn, M.-J.: Cerebral hemorrhage detec- tion and localization with medical imaging for cerebrovascular disease diagnosis and treat- ment using explainable deep learning. Jour- nal of the Korean Physical Society 79(3), 321–327 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sundar, L.K.S., Hacker, M., Beyer, T.: Whole-body pet imaging: a catalyst for whole-person research? Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64(2), 197 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49(8), 2994–3004 (2022)

    Sun, T., Wang, Z., Wu, Y., Gu, F., Li, X., Bai, Y., Shen, C., Hu, Z., Liang, D., Liu, X., et al.: Identifying the individual metabolic abnor- mities from a systemic perspective using whole-body PET imaging. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49(8), 2994...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Neurosurgery 18 clinics of North America 4(2), 223–231 (1993)

    Roper, S.N., Rhoton Jr, A.L.: Surgical anatomy of the temporal lobe. Neurosurgery 18 clinics of North America 4(2), 223–231 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    Epilepsy research 26(1), 141–150 (1996)

    Engel Jr, J.: Introduction to temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy research 26(1), 141–150 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    New Eng- land Journal of Medicine 334(10), 647–653 (1996)

    Engel Jr, J.: Surgery for seizures. New Eng- land Journal of Medicine 334(10), 647–653 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25(17), 9640 (2024)

    Liotta, A., Loroch, S., Wallach, I., Klewe, K., Marcus, K., Berndt, N.: Metabolic Adapta- tion in Epilepsy: From Acute Response to Chronic Impairment. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25(17), 9640 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Frontiers in Neurology11, 592514 (2020)

    Fei, Y., Shi, R., Song, Z., Wu, J.: Metabolic control of epilepsy: a promising therapeutic target for epilepsy. Frontiers in Neurology11, 592514 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Grad- cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 618–626 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Med- ical Sciences (2024)

    Chen, Y., Gao, Y., Zhu, L., Li, J., Wang, Y., Hu, J., Han, H., Lu, Y., Xie, Z.: Structure- Enhanced Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for CT Whole-Brain Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Med- ical Sciences (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp

    Teimouri, R., Kersten-Oertel, M., Xiao, Y.: CT-based brain ventricle segmentation via diffusion Schr¨ odinger Bridge without target domain ground truths. In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 135–144 (2024). Springer

    2024

  36. [44]

    Scientific Reports 13(1), 21037 (2023)

    Xu, X.-M., Zhang, H., Meng, R.-L.: Cra- nial midline shift is a predictor of the clin- ical prognosis of acute cerebral infarction patients undergoing emergency endovascular treatment. Scientific Reports 13(1), 21037 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Nutrients 15(17), 3728 (2023)

    Li, S., Liu, M., Cao, S., Liu, B., Li, D., Wang, Z., Sun, H., Cui, Y., Shi, Y.: The mechanism of the gut-brain axis in regulating food intake. Nutrients 15(17), 3728 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    World journal of psychiatry 11(10), 805 (2021)

    Sharp, H.E.C., Critchley, H.D., Eccles, J.A.: Connecting brain and body: Transdiagnos- tic relevance of connective tissue variants to neuropsychiatric symptom expression. World journal of psychiatry 11(10), 805 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Sourbron, J., Auvin, S., Cabral-Lim, L., Devlin, A., Dluglos, D., Hosny, H., Marson, T., Meador, K.J., Patel, A.A., Penell, P.B., et al.: Vitamin D prophylaxis in persons with epilepsy? Epilepsia 65(9), 2567–2579 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Neuroimage 59(3), 2255–2265 (2012)

    Serag, A., Aljabar, P., Ball, G., Coun- sell, S.J., Boardman, J.P., Rutherford, M.A., Edwards, A.D., Hajnal, J.V., Rueckert, D.: Construction of a consistent high-definition spatio-temporal atlas of the developing brain using adaptive kernel regression. Neuroimage 59(3), 2255–...

    2012

  41. [49]

    Journal of Nuclear Medicine 63(12), 1941–1948 (2022)

    Sundar, L.K.S., Yu, J., Muzik, O., Kulterer, O.C., Fueger, B., Kifjak, D., Nakuz, T., Shin, H.M., Sima, A.K., Kitzmantl, D., et al.: Fully automated, semantic segmentation of whole- body 18F-FDG PET/CT images based on data-centric artificial intelligence. Journal of Nuclear Me...

    2022

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., Krueger, G., Sutskever, I.: Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.18803 19

    Stevens, S., Wu, J., Thompson, M.J., Campo- longo, E.G., Song, C.H., Carlyn, D.E., Dong, L., Dahdul, W.M., Stewart, C., Berger-Wolf, T., Chao, W.-L., Su, Y.: BioCLIP: A Vision Foundation Model for the Tree of Life (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.18803 19

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034 (2013)

    Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., Zisserman, A.: Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualis- ing image classification models and saliency maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Chen, Y., Gao, Y., Zhu, L., Li, J., Wang, Y., Hu, J., Han, H., Lu, Y., Xie, Z

  47. [55]

    Neuroimage 36(3), 645–660 (2007)

    Iturria-Medina, Y., Canales-Rodr ´ ıguez, E.J., Melie-Garc ´ ıa, L., Vald´ es-Hern´ andez, P.A., Mart ´ ınez-Montes, E., Alem´ an-G´ omez, Y., S´ anchez-Bornot, J.: Characterizing brain anatomical connections using diffusion weighted MRI and graph theory. Neuroimage 36(3), 645...

    2007

  48. [56]

    Neuroimage 235, 118007 (2021)

    Grosch, M., Beyer, L., Lindner, M., Kaiser, L., Ahmadi, S.-A., Stockbauer, A., Barten- stein, P., Dieterich, M., Brendel, M., Zwergal, A., et al.: Metabolic connectivity-based single subject classification by multi-regional linear approximation in the rat. Neuroimage 235, 1180...

    2021

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15887 (2023)

    Liu, X., Xie, Y., Cheng, J., Diao, S., Tan, S., Liang, X.: Diffusion probabilistic priors for zero-shot low-dose ct image denoising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15887 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Parambil, B.C., Shah, S., Prasad, M., Vora, T., Laskar, S., Khanna, N., Qureshi, S., Ramadwar, M., Kembhavi, S., Sankaran, H., et al.: Can 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography be a prognostic tool in chil- dren with rhabdomyosarcoma treated with definitive radiotherapy? Journa...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Neuroimage 226, 117588 (2021)

    Grosch, M., Lindner, M., Bartenstein, P., Brandt, T., Dieterich, M., Ziegler, S., Zwer- gal, A.: Dynamic whole-brain metabolic con- nectivity during vestibular compensation in the rat. Neuroimage 226, 117588 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 39(3), 272–286 (2022)

    Kowalewska, B., Drozdz, W., Kowalewski, L.: Positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomogra- phy (SPECT) in autism research: litera- ture review. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 39(3), 272–286 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Pediatric Radiol- ogy 52(8), 1500–1511 (2022)

    Li, Q., Tian, R., Wang, H., Li, L., Wu, T., Ren, Y., Su, M., Zou, K., Sun, X.: Quantify- ing the contribution of 18F-FDG PET to the diagnostic assessment of pediatric patients with fever of unknown origin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Radiol- ogy 52(8), 150...

    2022

  54. [62]

    Molecular systems biology 16(5), 8982 (2020)

    Thiele, I., Sahoo, S., Heinken, A., Hertel, J., Heirendt, L., Aurich, M.K., Fleming, R.M.: Personalized whole-body models integrate metabolism, physiology, and the gut micro- biome. Molecular systems biology 16(5), 8982 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Corr” colume in the table is formatted as “A¿¿¿B,

    Teimouri, R., Kersten-Oertel, M., Xiao, Y.: CT-based brain ventricle segmentation via diffusion Schr¨ odinger Bridge without target domain ground truths. In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 135–144 (2024). Springer ...

    2024

Pith tools

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