Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 41 references

SAMba-UNet: SAM2-Mamba UNet for Cardiac MRI in Medical Robotic Perception

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing SAM2 with Mamba in a UNet skeleton yields the best reported ACDC cardiac MRI segmentation, with a 0.9103 mDice.

desk verdict New architecture, uncontrolled comparison: the 0.71pp ACDC gap over LeViT-UNet-384 is not established as a real gain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16304 v2 pith:VRP7QBWQ submitted 2025-05-22 cs.CV

Guohao Huo , Ruiting Dai , Ling Shao , Hao Tang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords SAM2MambaUNetcardiacMRIsegmentationACDCDynamicFeatureFusionRefinerHOACMmedicalroboticperception
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 tries to establish that a single segmentation architecture can profitably combine three apparently different ideas: the frozen vision foundation model SAM2, the linear-complexity state-space model Mamba, and the classic UNet encoder–decoder skeleton. On the ACDC cardiac MRI benchmark, the resulting SAMba-UNet reports a mean Dice of 0.9103 and a 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance of 1.0859 mm, beating ten published competitors and placing its biggest gains on the right ventricle and myocardium. If the architecture really delivers that margin, it would give medical robotic perception a ready-made high-fidelity segmentation module for pre-operative planning, intraoperative navigation, and post-operative screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Heterogeneous Omni-Attention Convergence Module (HOACM), a fusion block that combines Omniscient Contextual Attention (OCA), which re-establishes global pixel-level positional semantics for SAM2's hierarchical features, with Bifurcated Selective Emphasis Attention (BSEA), which dynamically weights Mamba's global and locally salient features before cross-attention merges the two streams. The Dynamic Feature Fusion Refiner, a multi-scale pooling and channel–spatial calibration adapter, carries the domain-transfer work of pulling SAM2's natural-image representations toward MRI.

What would settle it

Re-run all ten baselines plus SAMba-UNet on a single, pre-registered ACDC protocol with identical preprocessing and seeds, and check whether the 0.71-point mDice lead over LeViT-UNet-384 survives; if it does not, the headline gain is protocol artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SAM2's window-based positional detail and Mamba's long-range global context are complementary, and that a dedicated fusion module—not just a concatenation—lets a UNet exploit both at once. To that end it introduces a Dynamic Feature Fusion Refiner that adapts SAM2's natural-image features to MRI via multi-scale pooling and channel–spatial calibration, and a Heterogeneous Omni-Attention Convergence Module (HOACM) whose Omniscient Contextual Attention and Bifurcated Selective Emphasis Attention jointly reweight the two encoder streams. The reported results on ACDC—mDice 0.9103, mHD95 1.0859 mm—and the ablation tables are offered as evidence that every component contributes, with the right ventricle and myocardium showing the clearest gains.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 0.71-point margin assumes every baseline result in Table I comes from a comparable protocol—same ACDC split, preprocessing, and metric implementation—so the gap reflects architecture, not measurement differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported margin is real, SAMba-UNet is the strongest known single model on the ACDC benchmark, with a 0.71-percentage-point mDice lead over the next-best entry.
  • The gains concentrate on the right ventricle and myocardium—the structures with the most complex boundaries—so the approach is aimed at exactly the cases where manual annotation is hardest.
  • Because the Mamba branch processes sequences in linear time, the added global-context capacity does not force quadratic attention cost, keeping the fused model practical for clinical image volumes.
  • The frozen SAM2 encoder with a lightweight adapter means the method inherits foundation-model priors without full fine-tuning, a recipe that could transfer to other MRI targets with modest data.
  • The authors position the model as a perception module for surgical robotic systems, where its boundary precision would support navigation and complication screening.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper argues the segmentation maps are 'directly applicable' to robotic perception, but it reports no robot-in-the-loop or latency experiment; treating that as a transfer claim rather than a demonstrated result would be my reading.
  • The headline comparison mixes re-trained baselines with numbers copied from original papers; if protocols differ, the 0.71-point gap could shrink or vanish, so an independent re-benchmark under one protocol would be the natural stress test.
  • A testable next step is to freeze the trained encoder and probe whether the fusion module transfers to other cardiac MRI views or other modalities (e.g., CT), since the domain-shift argument is generic.
  • The 'first to synergize SAM2, Mamba, and UNet' claim is about architectural novelty; whether that combination is necessary—versus a well-tuned single encoder—is only answered by the ablations, which show each module adds a small increment.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SAMba-UNet, a U-shaped dual-encoder architecture that combines a frozen SAM2 Hiera encoder, a VMamba encoder, and a VMamba decoder, with two new modules: a Dynamic Feature Fusion Refiner (DFFR) and a Heterogeneous Omni-Attention Convergence Module (HOACM). The method is evaluated on the ACDC cardiac MRI segmentation benchmark, reporting an mDice of 0.9103 and HD95 of 1.0859 mm, and the authors claim it surpasses all compared baselines. The paper also states that the model is directly applicable as a perception module for intelligent medical and surgical robotic systems. The experiments include a comparison table, two ablation tables, and qualitative visualizations.

Significance. If the performance claim were established under a controlled protocol, the architecture would be a useful contribution: integrating a frozen SAM2 encoder with a linear-complexity Mamba branch for medical segmentation is a plausible and timely direction, and the use of a public benchmark (ACDC) is a strength. The paper also promises open-sourced code, which would support reproducibility. However, the central empirical claim is currently not established because the baseline comparison in Table I is not controlled, the boundary metrics that are highlighted in the abstract are not compared against any baseline, and several modules referenced in the ablations are undefined. The claimed robotic-perception applicability is not tested by the experiments. The contribution is therefore more of a proposal with promising but unverified results than a validated method at this stage.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV-D, Table I] The main performance claim rests on an uncontrolled baseline comparison. The text says that models with official implementations were 'retraining and testing on an A800 server (or using official weights directly)', while others use 'the officially reported results from their respective papers', but it never lists which baseline falls into which category, what ACDC train/validation split was used, what 2D preprocessing was applied (cropping, resampling, slice selection), or what metric implementation was used. ACDC has no standardized 2D split, and published Dice values on it vary by several points with preprocessing choices. No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported for any method. Consequently, the 0.71 percentage-point mDice advantage over LeViT-UNet-384 (Section IV-D) is within the range of protocol and seed variation and cannot be interpreted as an architectural gain. The authors need to retrain all baselines under the same split, preprocessing, and metric code, report per-class Dice for all, and provide statistical significance or at least multiple-seed variance.
  2. [Table I and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion emphasize boundary localization and report HD95 as a headline result, but Table I lists only mDice, RV, MYO, and LV for the baselines. HD95 and ASD, which are defined in Section IV-C, are reported for the proposed method only through the ablation tables. This makes it impossible to support the claim of 'notably improving boundary localization' over prior work. Baseline HD95/ASD values must be included for a fair boundary-performance comparison.
  3. [Table II, Table III, Section III-C] The ablations contain an undefined module: Table II includes a row 'w/o GCAA', but no module named GCAA is defined in Section III; the defined modules are OCA and BSEA, and a 'gated spatial attention (GSA)' appears inside OCA. As written, the reader cannot determine what is being ablated. In addition, the ablation differences are small (e.g., ALL 0.9103 vs. w/o BSEA 0.9064) and no variance or significance measures are reported, so it is unclear whether these differences are meaningful. The authors should define every ablated component, align the naming with the method section, and report multiple-seed results.
  4. [IV-B] The implementation details are not reproducible as stated. The paper reports Python 3.12.0 with PyTorch 1.10 and CUDA 12.1, but PyTorch 1.10 does not support Python 3.12, and the combination as written is not a valid released configuration. Additionally, the paper says 'the preprocessed ACDC dataset' was used but does not specify the preprocessing steps, image resolution, slice selection, or data split. This blocks reproduction. The authors must provide the exact software versions, preprocessing pipeline, split definitions, and either the released code or a precise configuration file.
  5. [Abstract, Fig. 1, Conclusion] The paper repeatedly claims that SAMba-UNet is 'directly applicable as a perception module within intelligent medical and surgical robotic systems' and includes a robotic workflow figure, but no experiment evaluates robotic perception, inference latency, real-time constraints, or integration with a robot controller. The ACDC segmentation benchmark alone does not test this claim. Either the robotic claim should be removed from the title, abstract, and conclusion, or supporting experiments (e.g., latency, deployment on a robotic platform) should be added.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (12)] The symbol M is reused for both the attention weight matrix in Eq. (10) and the spatial attention output in Eq. (12), which is confusing; please use distinct notation for these quantities.
  2. [Eq. (4)] In Eq. (4), X_cat has shape B×2C while X_sp is not given an explicit channel dimension in Eq. (3); the addition X_cat + X_sp appears dimensionally ambiguous and should be clarified.
  3. [III-A] The text 'we integrate design principles from FE-UNet and Medical SAM Adapter' references FE-UNet without a citation; a reference or a brief description is needed.
  4. [References] Reference [37] is cited to support the claim about SAM2's window-based absolute position encoding, but the cited paper is about mitigating position bias in large language models and does not appear relevant; please cite the appropriate source.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'eterogeneous' should be 'Heterogeneous'.
  6. [Abstract and Introduction] The claim of being 'the first pioneering framework that successfully synergizes SAM2, Mamba, and UNet' should be tempered or supported by a more thorough recent-literature comparison, since several SAM+Mamba works already exist (e.g., SAM-Mamba [33]) and the novelty claim as stated is difficult to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central claims are empirical benchmark results, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical architecture paper, not a claimed derivation. The central quantitative claim (mDice 0.9103 and HD95 1.0859 mm on ACDC) is obtained by training the proposed SAMba-UNet and comparing it to independently published or retrained baselines; no parameter is fitted to the target metric, and the reported advantage over LeViT-UNet-384 is an external benchmark result rather than a construct. The ablations vary real architectural components and are evaluated on a held-out validation set, so the final score is not equivalent to the choice of modules by construction. The only self-citation is reference [23] (MaskSAM, by co-author Hao Tang et al.), used to support the general statement that SAM underperforms on medical images; this claim is corroborated by independent references [20]–[22] and is not load-bearing for any derived result. No equation defines an input in terms of the target output, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work. Concerns about baseline comparability, missing error bars, or mismatch between described and ablated components are experimental-validity and reproducibility issues, not circularity. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are introduced. The new modules (DFFR, OCA, BSEA, HOACM) are architectural components whose only evidence is the ablation tables in the paper; they carry no independent falsifiable handle beyond the reported benchmark. The ledger records one hand-set compression ratio, a hand-set kernel size, and a set of training hyperparameters without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (3)
  • Compression ratio r in DFFR channel bottleneck = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (2) as h = floor(C*r); no search or chosen value is reported, and the model capacity depends on it.
  • Attention kernel size 7x7 in OCA/GSA = 7
    Hand-chosen in Eqs. (17) and (18); no ablation on kernel size is provided.
  • Training hyperparameters: initial LR 0.01, batch size 12, iterations 10k, weight decay 1e-4, momentum 0.9 = as listed in Section IV-B
    Chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis; the paper also omits the loss function, learning-rate schedule, and random seed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ACDC preprocessing and patient-wise split are assumed to match prior benchmark practice.
    Section IV-B says 'preprocessed ACDC dataset' but does not state preprocessing, slice selection, or train/validation split; comparability with baselines depends on this.
  • domain assumption Baseline numbers taken from original papers are computed under the same evaluation protocol as the retrained ones.
    Section IV-D mixes retrained baselines with numbers adopted from published papers, but no protocol harmonization is described.
  • domain assumption Frozen SAM2 Hiera-Large features can be adapted to cardiac MRI with lightweight adapters.
    Core design premise in Section III-A; it is asserted rather than separately validated and is in tension with the domain-gap literature cited in [20]-[23].
  • standard math Standard linear algebra, pooling, and attention operations compute as written.
    Equations (5)-(18) rely on standard operations; no proof or formal verification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SAMba-UNet: SAM2-Mamba UNet for Cardiac MRI in Medical Robotic Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRP7QBWQ

@misc{pith2026250516304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SAMba-UNet: SAM2-Mamba UNet for Cardiac MRI in Medical Robotic Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRP7QBWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16304}
}
read the original abstract

To address complex pathological feature extraction in automated cardiac MRI segmentation, we propose SAMba-UNet, a novel dual-encoder architecture that synergistically combines the vision foundation model SAM2, the linear-complexity state-space model Mamba, and the classical UNet to achieve cross-modal collaborative feature learning; to overcome domain shifts between natural images and medical scans, we introduce a Dynamic Feature Fusion Refiner that employs multi-scale pooling and channel-spatial dual-path calibration to strengthen small-lesion and fine-structure representation, and we design a Heterogeneous Omni-Attention Convergence Module (HOACM) that fuses SAM2's local positional semantics with Mamba's long-range dependency modeling via global contextual attention and branch-selective emphasis, yielding substantial gains in both global consistency and boundary precision-on the ACDC cardiac MRI benchmark, SAMba-UNet attains a Dice of 0.9103 and HD95 of 1.0859 mm, notably improving boundary localization for challenging structures like the right ventricle, and its robust, high-fidelity segmentation maps are directly applicable as a perception module within intelligent medical and surgical robotic systems to support preoperative planning, intraoperative navigation, and postoperative complication screening; the code will be open-sourced to facilitate clinical translation and further validation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of the proposed medical robotic control system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of SAMba-UNet. avoiding quadratic computational overhead. The Mamba￾Unet [31] framework proposes a novel medical image seg￾mentation model by integrating the U-Net [2] architecture with Mamba’s capabilities. However, its insufficient local feature extraction capability limits effective capture of subtle lesion structures. Subsequent improvements like U-Mamba [32] and SegMamba [26] combine Mamba with… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of Dynamic Feature Fusion Refiner. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The architecture of eterogeneous Omni-Attention Convergence Module (HOACM). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of cardiac structure segmentation performance among [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Integration of machine learning in imaging analysis for clinical diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases,

    S. Sanyaolu, “Integration of machine learning in imaging analysis for clinical diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases,”Cardiology, vol. 2, p. 100006, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, pro- ceedings, part III 18. Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  3. [3]

    Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation,

    Z. Zhou, M. M. R. Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation,”IEEE TMI, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1856–1867, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Densely connected convolutional networks,

    G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. Van Der Maaten, and K. Q. Weinberger, “Densely connected convolutional networks,” inCVPR, 2017, pp. 4700–4708

    2017

  5. [5]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inCVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  6. [6]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module,

    S. Woo, J. Park, J.-Y . Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “Cbam: Convolutional block attention module,” inProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 3–19

    2018

  7. [7]

    Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,

    A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, B. Chen, D. Kalenichenko, W. Wang, T. Weyand, M. Andreetto, and H. Adam, “Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,

    F. Yu and V . Koltun, “Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07122, 2015

    arXiv 2015

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Acnn: a full resolution dcnn for medical image segmentation,

    X.-Y . Zhou, J.-Q. Zheng, P. Li, and G.-Z. Yang, “Acnn: a full resolution dcnn for medical image segmentation,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 8455–8461

    2020

  2. [10]

    Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation,

    J. Chen, Y . Lu, Q. Yu, X. Luo, E. Adeli, Y . Wang, L. Lu, A. L. Yuille, and Y . Zhou, “Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Transfuse: Fusing transformers and cnns for medical image segmentation,

    Y . Zhang, H. Liu, and Q. Hu, “Transfuse: Fusing transformers and cnns for medical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer assisted intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th international conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, pro- ceedings, Par...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation,

    J. M. J. Valanarasu, P. Oza, I. Hacihaliloglu, and V . M. Patel, “Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer assisted intervention– MICCAI 2021: 24th international conference, Strasbourg, France, September...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images,

    A. Hatamizadeh, V . Nath, Y . Tang, D. Yang, H. R. Roth, and D. Xu, “Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images,” inInternational MICCAI brainlesion workshop. Springer, 2021, pp. 272–284

    2021

  6. [14]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gellyet al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  8. [16]

    Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence,

    M. Moor, O. Banerjee, Z. S. H. Abad, H. M. Krumholz, J. Leskovec, E. J. Topol, and P. Rajpurkar, “Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence,”Nature, vol. 616, no. 7956, pp. 259– 265, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Foundation model for advancing healthcare: challenges, opportunities and future directions,

    Y . He, F. Huang, X. Jiang, Y . Nie, M. Wang, J. Wang, and H. Chen, “Foundation model for advancing healthcare: challenges, opportunities and future directions,”IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    A comprehensive survey of foundation models in medicine,

    W. Khan, S. Leem, K. B. See, J. K. Wong, S. Zhang, and R. Fang, “A comprehensive survey of foundation models in medicine,”IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafsonet al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Segment anything model for medical images?

    Y . Huang, X. Yang, L. Liu, H. Zhou, A. Chang, X. Zhou, R. Chen, J. Yu, J. Chen, C. Chenet al., “Segment anything model for medical images?”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 92, p. 103061, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Accuracy of segment- anything model (sam) in medical image segmentation tasks,

    S. He, R. Bao, J. Li, P. E. Grant, and Y . Ou, “Accuracy of segment- anything model (sam) in medical image segmentation tasks,”CoRR, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Sam. md: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the segment anything model,

    S. Roy, T. Wald, G. Koehler, M. R. Rokuss, N. Disch, J. Holzschuh, D. Zimmerer, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “Sam. md: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the segment anything model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05396, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Masksam: Towards auto-prompt sam with mask classification for volumetric medical image segmentation,

    B. Xie, H. Tang, B. Duan, D. Cai, Y . Yan, and G. Agam, “Masksam: Towards auto-prompt sam with mask classification for volumetric medical image segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14103, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Vmamba: Visual state space model,

    Y . Liu, Y . Tian, Y . Zhao, H. Yu, L. Xie, Y . Wang, Q. Ye, J. Jiao, and Y . Liu, “Vmamba: Visual state space model,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 37, pp. 103 031–103 063, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Missformer: An effective transformer for 2d medical image segmentation,

    X. Huang, Z. Deng, D. Li, X. Yuan, and Y . Fu, “Missformer: An effective transformer for 2d medical image segmentation,”IEEE TMI, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1484–1494, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Segmamba: Long- range sequential modeling mamba for 3d medical image segmenta- tion,

    Z. Xing, T. Ye, Y . Yang, G. Liu, and L. Zhu, “Segmamba: Long- range sequential modeling mamba for 3d medical image segmenta- tion,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2024, pp. 578–588

    2024

  19. [27]

    Mambamil: Enhancing long se- quence modeling with sequence reordering in computational pathol- ogy,

    S. Yang, Y . Wang, and H. Chen, “Mambamil: Enhancing long se- quence modeling with sequence reordering in computational pathol- ogy,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2024, pp. 296–306

    2024

  20. [28]

    Embedded prompt tuning: Towards enhanced calibration of pretrained models for medical images,

    W. Zu, S. Xie, Q. Zhao, G. Li, and L. Ma, “Embedded prompt tuning: Towards enhanced calibration of pretrained models for medical images,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 97, p. 103258, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,

    J. Wu, Z. Wang, M. Hong, W. Ji, H. Fu, Y . Xu, M. Xu, and Y . Jin, “Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,”Medical image analysis, vol. 102, p. 103547, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,

    A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mamba-unet: Unet-like pure visual mamba for medical image segmentation,

    Z. Wang, J.-Q. Zheng, Y . Zhang, G. Cui, and L. Li, “Mamba-unet: Unet-like pure visual mamba for medical image segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05079, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation,

    J. Ma, F. Li, and B. Wang, “U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04722, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sam-mamba: Mamba guided sam architecture for generalized zero-shot polyp segmentation,

    T. K. Dutta, S. Majhi, D. R. Nayak, and D. Jha, “Sam-mamba: Mamba guided sam architecture for generalized zero-shot polyp segmentation,” in2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, 2025, pp. 4655–4664

    2025

  26. [34]

    Lfsamba: Marry sam with mamba for light field salient object detection,

    Z. Liu, L. Wang, X. Fang, Z. Tu, and L. Wang, “Lfsamba: Marry sam with mamba for light field salient object detection,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

    2022

  28. [36]

    Hiera: A hierarchical vision transformer without the bells-and-whistles,

    C. Ryali, Y .-T. Hu, D. Bolya, C. Wei, H. Fan, P.-Y . Huang, V . Ag- garwal, A. Chowdhury, O. Poursaeed, J. Hoffmanet al., “Hiera: A hierarchical vision transformer without the bells-and-whistles,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 29 441–29 454

    2023

  29. [37]

    Mitigate position bias in large language models via scaling a single dimension,

    Y . Yu, H. Jiang, X. Luo, Q. Wu, C.-Y . Lin, D. Li, Y . Yang, Y . Huang, and L. Qiu, “Mitigate position bias in large language models via scaling a single dimension,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02536, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas,

    O. Oktay, J. Schlemper, L. L. Folgoc, M. Lee, M. Heinrich, K. Misawa, K. Mori, S. McDonagh, N. Y . Hammerla, B. Kainzet al., “Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

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

    2022

  32. [40]

    Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation,

    A. Hatamizadeh, Y . Tang, V . Nath, D. Yang, A. Myronenko, B. Land- man, H. R. Roth, and D. Xu, “Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter confer- ence on applications of computer vision, 2022, pp. 574–584

    2022

  33. [41]

    Levit-unet: Make faster encoders with transformer for medical image segmentation,

    G. Xu, X. Zhang, X. He, and X. Wu, “Levit-unet: Make faster encoders with transformer for medical image segmentation,” inChinese Confer- ence on Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision (PRCV). Springer, 2023, pp. 42–53

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.