FPDANet: A Multi-Section Classification Model for Intelligent Screening of Fetal Ultrasound

Bocheng Liang; Caixu Xu; Guannan He; Jie He; Minglang Chen; Shengli Li; Xiongjie Tao

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 29 references

FPDANet: A Multi-Section Classification Model for Intelligent Screening of Fetal Ultrasound

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 FPDANet, a ResNet-based model with positional attention and bilateral multi-scale fusion, classifies 21 fetal ultrasound sections at 91.05% top-1 and 100% top-5 accuracy, supporting automated prenatal screening.

desk verdict Useful clinical problem, but the architecture is a near-copy of DANet and the evaluation lacks a patient-disjoint split, so the 91% top-1 claim is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06054 v1 pith:T2YA7PPE submitted 2025-06-06 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Minglang Chen , Jie He , Caixu Xu , Bocheng Liang , Shengli Li , Guannan He , Xiongjie Tao This is my paper

classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV

keywords fetalultrasoundimageclassificationattentionmechanismmulti-scalefeaturefusiondeeplearningprenatalscreeningmedicalimaging

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

FPDANet is a deep-learning model that automatically assigns a fetal ultrasound image to one of 21 standard screening sections, such as four-chamber view, femur, and kidneys. The paper's central claim is that combining a positional attention module (DAN) with a bilateral multi-scale fusion network (FPAN) on a ResNet backbone solves the low contrast, high noise, and high inter-class similarity of fetal ultrasound images. On a hospital dataset of 9,099 images, the model reaches 91.05% top-1 and 100% top-5 accuracy, improving on ResNet-18 by 8.19 percentage points. If this holds, sonographers could use the model to pre-select the correct section, reducing the time and experience needed for prenatal screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are the DAN attention module and the FPAN bilateral multi-scale fusion network. DAN combines a positional attention map ($S_{ji}$) that weights the influence of every spatial position on every other based on feature similarity, and a channel attention map ($X_{ji}$) that does the same across channels, each added back to the original features through learned scaling factors. FPAN uses a bottom-up path that passes high-level features down to low layers and a top-down path that passes low-level detail up, fusing features at multiple scales and inserting convolutions after sampling to reduce aliasing. These modules are inserted into a ResNet backbone consisting of convolution and identity residual blocks.

What would settle it

Split the 9099 images by fetus identity so every fetus appears in only one partition, then measure FPDANet's top-1 accuracy; if it drops materially below 91.05%, the reported generalization to unseen patients is overstated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper discovers that a ResNet backbone's unidirectional feature flow can be corrected by inserting a dual-attention module at the fourth and fifth residual groups and feeding the last feature layer into a bottom-up/top-down fusion network. The positional attention branch computes a spatial similarity map over all pixel positions, so each output position aggregates features from the whole image; the channel branch does the same across channels, capturing long-range semantic dependencies. The FPAN module then fuses third- and fourth-layer features with the top-level features in both directions, preserving small-target detail and global context. Together these components raise classification accuracy on 21 fetal ultrasound sections to 91.05% top-1 and 100% top-5, which the paper attributes to the model learning more general and robust features than standard backbones.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy assumes no fetus contributes images to both training and test sets; the paper describes the split only by image counts, not by patient or fetus identity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

FPDANet ranks 21 fetal ultrasound sections with 91.05% top-1 and 100% top-5 accuracy, so a physician checking the top five suggestions would always see the correct section in this test set.
The DAN attention module improves top-1 accuracy by 3.93% over the no-attention baseline, indicating that modelling spatial and channel dependencies helps with low-contrast ultrasound features.
The FPAN bilateral fusion lifts ResNet-18 by 8.19% top-1, suggesting multi-scale context fusion addresses the feature singularity of unidirectional backbones.
The model has the lowest average false negative rate among the compared models, meaning fewer missed correct sections than ResNet, VGG, ConvNeXt, ViT and others in this dataset.
These results support the feasibility of automated section screening as a decision aid for sonographers, not a replacement for clinicians.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same acquisition devices or gestational-age distribution appear in other hospitals, performance may transfer, but multi-center, multi-device evaluation is needed to confirm; the paper's single-hospital dataset leaves this open.
The positional attention mechanism could be applied to other low-contrast medical modalities such as echocardiography or musculoskeletal ultrasound, where similar inter-class similarity and noise issues arise.
A practical deployment could use the 100% top-5 result to build a triage interface showing the top five candidate sections; this is a direct product-level consequence the authors do not discuss.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this paper has a real clinical motivation and a plausible-looking empirical result, but the two load-bearing claims do not hold up. The DAN attention module in Section III-B is literally the Dual Attention Network of Fu et al. (CVPR 2019) — same position and channel attention equations, same softmax and weighted-sum formulation, same alpha/beta scaling — and it is not cited. The FPAN fusion in III-C is also PANet/BiFPN-style bottom-up and top-down fusion, just renamed. So the "new" contribution is the specific combination plus application to a private 21-class fetal ultrasound dataset. That is incremental, not novel.

The evaluation is where the bigger problem sits. Section IV-A says the data are split 7:2:1, but Table I gives 6554/1629/916 = 72/18/10. That is a careless inconsistency. Worse, nothing anywhere says the split is patient-disjoint. Fetal ultrasound exams produce many frames per patient, and these frames are near-duplicates in gain, angle, and shadowing. If the same fetus appears in both train and test, the model memorizes patient-specific appearance and the reported 91.05% top-1 and 100% top-5 become misleading. This is not a cosmetic gap; "robustness" and "generalization" are asserted precisely on that basis.

Credit where it is due: the 21-class task including CDFI and spectral Doppler is a genuine clinical screening problem, and the class inventory in Tables I and II is thorough. The ablations and baseline comparisons are standard, with gains over ResNet and Conformer in a plausible range. There is real work here, and the central empirical claim may even be true in a patient-disjoint setting. But we cannot tell from the paper. No code, no data, no error bars, and the learning-rate schedule in equations (5)-(8) is confusingly described. There are also minor writing problems — "Four-Chamber Viewr," a reference [29] that looks like a placeholder, and some repetitive prose in Section IV-D.

My take: this deserves a serious referee because the clinical question matters and the fixable flaws, not some irreparable conceptual error, are what block the paper. But as it stands, I would not trust the headline numbers. A revision needs a patient-disjoint split explicitly described, code/data release or external validation, and honest citation of DANet and PANet. Without those, the empirical claim stays an assertion.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FPDANet, a classification model for 21 fetal ultrasound view categories. The architecture combines a ResNet backbone, a positional-and-channel attention module (DAN), and a bilateral multi-scale feature fusion network (FPAN). The authors report 91.05% top-1 and 100% top-5 accuracy on a private dataset of 9,099 images from Shenzhen Maternal and Child Health Hospital, and compare against several baselines and attention-module ablations. The central claim is that FPDANet demonstrates effectiveness and robustness for intelligent screening of fetal ultrasound sections.

Significance. If the reported accuracy holds under a patient-disjoint evaluation, the model could serve as a useful assistive tool for fetal ultrasound screening. The paper has some strengths: it reports per-class accuracies for many baselines, includes ablation of attention mechanisms, and states ethics approval and informed consent. However, the contributions are undermined by serious methodological gaps. The private dataset is described only by image counts, with no statement that train/test splits are patient-disjoint; fetal ultrasound produces many near-duplicate frames per patient, so the generalization claim is not yet substantiated. In addition, the attention module appears to be a near-verbatim adoption of the well-known dual attention network (DANet) without citation, and the FPAN module is specified only qualitatively. These issues affect the reproducibility and validity of the central empirical claim.

major comments (5)

[Section IV-A and Table I] The data split is described only by image counts. The paper does not state whether all images from the same fetus were confined to a single split. Fetal ultrasound exams typically acquire many frames per patient with high visual similarity, so images from the same fetus in both training and test sets would allow the model to memorize patient-specific appearance. This would inflate the reported top-1 accuracy of 91.05% and make the 100% top-5 result unsurprising. Since 'robustness' is asserted in the Abstract and Section V, the authors must either confirm that the split was performed at the patient/pregnancy level or re-run the experiments with a patient-disjoint split. This concern affects all results in Tables III and IV and Figure 3.
[Section III-B, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The positional attention and channel attention modules are identical in form to the dual attention modules in Fu et al., 'Dual Attention Network for Scene Segmentation' (CVPR 2019), but that work is not cited. The text claims 'we design the positional attention mechanism (DAN) module,' which is misleading if the module is an existing one. If the authors have modified the original, the modifications must be stated; otherwise, the original source should be cited and the novelty of FPDANet should be repositioned. This is load-bearing because the paper's contribution relies on the introduction of the DAN module.
[Section III-C and Figure 1] The FPAN bilateral multi-scale fusion network is described only in qualitative terms, such as 'fuses the features of the fourth and third layers of the backbone network through the upper sampling layer,' without specifying tensor dimensions, kernel sizes, stride factors, or whether fusion is by addition or concatenation. No equations or pseudocode are given. This makes the method impossible to reproduce and prevents the reader from assessing exactly what the FPAN module contributes beyond existing feature pyramid networks. Provide a precise architectural specification, including layer-by-layer dimensions and fusion operations.
[Section IV-B, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The learning-rate schedule is confusing and incomplete. The text states initial maximum and minimum learning rates of 0.01 and 0.0001, and upper and lower limits of 0.001 and 0.0001, but the batch size used in Eqs. (5)-(8) is never given, and the 'decreases in steps' rule is not defined (step interval, decay factor). Without the exact schedule and batch size, the reported results cannot be reproduced. Please provide the batch size and a precise description of the stepwise decay.
[Tables III and IV] All reported accuracies are single-run point estimates without confidence intervals or repeated-seed experiments. The test set has only 916 images, so the difference between the best baseline (Conformer, 88.54%) and FPDANet (91.05%) may be within statistical uncertainty. To support the claim that FPDANet significantly outperforms the baselines, report confidence intervals (e.g., bootstrap) or a small number of repeated runs with different random seeds, and state the number of runs.

minor comments (6)

[Section IV-A] The text says the dataset is divided in the ratio 7:2:1, but the actual counts (6554/1629/916) correspond to approximately 72:18:10. Correct the description or adjust the counts.
[Section IV-A] The phrase 'a dataset of 21 fetal ultrasound images' should read 'a dataset of 21 fetal ultrasound image categories' to avoid confusion.
[Section III-A] The sentence 'this paper proposes a convolutional neural network for automatic classification of multi-type fetal ultrasound images by using ResNet model as the backbone network and the bilateral multi-scale information fusion network levy enhancement module' is grammatically broken and should be rewritten.
[Equations (1)-(4)] The index ranges in Eqs. (1)-(4) are inconsistent (e.g., sums from 0 to N and from 1 to C). Use consistent notation, and clarify that S and X are attention maps over positions and channels, respectively.
[Section IV-B] The sentence 'the model has been trained for a total of 200 epoch' has a subject-verb agreement error; change 'epoch' to 'epochs.'
[References] Reference [29] is incomplete, listing only 'Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition' with no title, authors, or year. Please provide the full reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported accuracies are measured on a private dataset rather than derived from the model's definitions or from self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance report (91.05% top-1, 100% top-5 on its own test set), not a first-principles prediction. The DAN and FPAN equations in Section III are architectural definitions; no reported result is obtained from them by algebraically forcing the input, and no fitted parameter is subsequently relabelled as a prediction. Self-citations such as [13] and [24] appear in related work and do not carry the burden of proving FPDANet's effectiveness; the effectiveness claim is supported by the experiments in Tables III and IV. The private dataset and the absence of an explicit patient-disjoint split are legitimate generalization and leakage concerns, but they are evaluation-validity issues, not circularity under the definitions used here. The possible resemblance of the attention equations to published dual-attention modules is a novelty or attribution concern; it does not make the measured accuracy equivalent to the method's inputs.

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

The paper's central claim is an empirical accuracy measurement, so there are no analytic constants fitted to the target result. The listed hyperparameters are hand-chosen but standard. The assumptions are the load-bearing background commitments: a working backbone, correct labels, an independent split, and standard optimization. No new entities are introduced; the DAN and FPAN modules are renamed versions of existing attention and feature pyramid components from the literature.

free parameters (4)

lr_max_lim = 0.001
Upper learning rate limit in equations (5)-(8), chosen by hand; affects training but not the architecture claim.
lr_min_lim = 0.0001
Lower learning rate limit in equations (5)-(8), chosen by hand.
nbs = 64
Nominal batch size in the learning rate scaling formula, chosen by hand.
epochs = 200
Total training epochs, chosen by hand.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption ResNet residual connections mitigate gradient vanishing and provide a suitable backbone for fetal ultrasound classification.
Invoked in Section III-A as the basis for using ResNet; this is a standard result from prior literature, not proven here.
domain assumption The private dataset labels are clinically correct and consistent across the 21 view categories.
Section IV-A states the data came from one hospital; label correctness is assumed and not independently audited.
domain assumption The train/validation/test split is independent at the patient level, preventing data leakage.
Section IV-A specifies only image counts per split; patient level separation is not stated.
standard math AdamW and CrossEntropyLoss are appropriate for this classification task.
Used in Section IV-B as the default optimization setup without justification; this is a common choice in deep learning.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FPDANet: A Multi-Section Classification Model for Intelligent Screening of Fetal Ultrasound." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2YA7PPE

@misc{pith2026250606054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FPDANet: A Multi-Section Classification Model for Intelligent Screening of Fetal Ultrasound},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2YA7PPE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06054}
}

read the original abstract

ResNet has been widely used in image classification tasks due to its ability to model the residual dependence of constant mappings for linear computation. However, the ResNet method adopts a unidirectional transfer of features and lacks an effective method to correlate contextual information, which is not effective in classifying fetal ultrasound images in the classification task, and fetal ultrasound images have problems such as low contrast, high similarity, and high noise. Therefore, we propose a bilateral multi-scale information fusion network-based FPDANet to address the above challenges. Specifically, we design the positional attention mechanism (DAN) module, which utilizes the similarity of features to establish the dependency of different spatial positional features and enhance the feature representation. In addition, we design a bilateral multi-scale (FPAN) information fusion module to capture contextual and global feature dependencies at different feature scales, thereby further improving the model representation. FPDANet classification results obtained 91.05\% and 100\% in Top-1 and Top-5 metrics, respectively, and the experimental results proved the effectiveness and robustness of FPDANet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06054 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Bilateral attention mechanisms. The positional attention module establishes the dependence of similar features at different spatial locations of an image, allowing the model to understand the global structure and contextual information. The input feature A ∈ R C×H×W is first flattened into vector B, C, D, {B, C, D} ∈ R C×H×W by 1×1 convolution, then features B and C are transformed into R C×N shape, where N = H · W … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** False negative rate curves under different baseline models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[29]

Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,

C. Xu, J. Han, and F. Nie, “Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,” 1997

work page 1997
[1]

Fetal mri: A force for prenatal imaging of birth defects,

G. Ning, “Fetal mri: A force for prenatal imaging of birth defects,” Chinese Journal of Maternal and Child Clinical Medicine (Electronic version), vol. 17, no. 03, p. 257, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects: echocardio- graphy,

H. Y . Sun, “Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects: echocardio- graphy,”Transl. Pediatr., vol. 10, no. 8, p. 2210, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Role of four-chamber heart ultrasound images in automatic assessment of fetal heart: A systematic understanding,

A. Gudigar, R. U, J. Samanth, and et al., “Role of four-chamber heart ultrasound images in automatic assessment of fetal heart: A systematic understanding,” inInformatics, vol. 9, no. 2. MDPI, 2022, p. 34

work page 2022
[4]

An in-depth interpretation of the guidelines for prenatal ul- trasound examination (2012) by the sonographers’ association of the chinese medical doctors’ association

S. Li, “An in-depth interpretation of the guidelines for prenatal ul- trasound examination (2012) by the sonographers’ association of the chinese medical doctors’ association.”Chinese Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine: Electronic Edition, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–9, 2014

work page 2012
[5]

Aium practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations,

J. P. Crino, H. J. Finberg, F. Frieden, and et al., “Aium practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations,”J. Ultrasound Med., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1083–1101, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan

L. J. Salomon, Z. Alfirevic, V . Berghella, and et al., “Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 37, no. 1, 2011

work page 2011
[7]

Deep learning in image classification using residual network (resnet) variants for detection of colorectal cancer,

D. Sarwinda, R. H. Paradisa, A. Bustamam, and et al., “Deep learning in image classification using residual network (resnet) variants for detection of colorectal cancer,”Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 179, pp. 423–431, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 29 references

[8]

Automatic classification of fetal heart rate based on convolutional neural network,

J. Li, Z.-Z. Chen, L. Huang, and et al., “Automatic classification of fetal heart rate based on convolutional neural network,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1394–1401, 2018

2018
[9]

Fetal cardiac cycle detection in multi-resource echocardiograms using hybrid classification framework,

B. Pu, N. Zhu, K. Li, and et al., “Fetal cardiac cycle detection in multi-resource echocardiograms using hybrid classification framework,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 115, pp. 825–836, 2021

2021
[10]

Deep endpoints focusing network under geometric constraints for end-to-end biometric measurement in fetal ultrasound images,

Z. Gao, Z. Tian, B. Pu, and et al., “Deep endpoints focusing network under geometric constraints for end-to-end biometric measurement in fetal ultrasound images,”Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 165, p. 107399, 2023

2023
[11]

Mobileunet-fpn: A semantic segmentation model for fetal ultrasound four-chamber segmentation in edge computing environments,

B. Pu, Y . Lu, J. Chen, and et al., “Mobileunet-fpn: A semantic segmentation model for fetal ultrasound four-chamber segmentation in edge computing environments,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 5540–5550, 2022

2022
[12]

A yolox-based deep instance seg- mentation neural network for cardiac anatomical structures in fetal ultrasound images,

Y . Lu, K. Li, B. Pu, and et al., “A yolox-based deep instance seg- mentation neural network for cardiac anatomical structures in fetal ultrasound images,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2022

2022
[13]

Fetal cardiac ultrasound standard section detection model based on multitask learning and mixed attention mechanism,

J. He, L. Yang, B. Liang, and et al., “Fetal cardiac ultrasound standard section detection model based on multitask learning and mixed attention mechanism,”Neurocomputing, vol. 579, p. 127443, 2024

2024
[14]

Automatic fetal ultrasound standard plane recognition based on deep learning and iiot,

B. Pu, K. Li, S. Li, and et al., “Automatic fetal ultrasound standard plane recognition based on deep learning and iiot,”IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 7771–7780, 2021

2021
[15]

An ultrasound standard plane detection model of fetal head based on multi-task learning and hybrid knowledge graph,

L. Zhao, K. Li, B. Pu, and et al., “An ultrasound standard plane detection model of fetal head based on multi-task learning and hybrid knowledge graph,”Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 135, pp. 234–243, 2022

2022
[16]

Hfsccd: a hybrid neural network for fetal standard cardiac cycle detection in ultrasound videos,

B. Pu, K. Li, J. Chen, and et al., “Hfsccd: a hybrid neural network for fetal standard cardiac cycle detection in ultrasound videos,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2024

2024
[17]

Unsupervised domain adaptation for anatomical structure detection in ultrasound images,

B. Pu, X. Lv, J. Yang, and et al., “Unsupervised domain adaptation for anatomical structure detection in ultrasound images,” inForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

2024
[18]

Sleep staging by bidirectional long short-term memory convolution neural network,

X. Chen, J. He, X. Wu, and et al., “Sleep staging by bidirectional long short-term memory convolution neural network,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 109, pp. 188–196, 2020

2020
[19]

An adaptive meta-imitation learning-based recommendation environment simulator: A case study on ship-cargo matching,

G. Pang, J. Xie, and F. Hao, “An adaptive meta-imitation learning-based recommendation environment simulator: A case study on ship-cargo matching,”Information Fusion, p. 102740, 2024

2024
[20]

M3-uda: A new benchmark for unsupervised domain adaptive fetal cardiac structure detection,

B. Pu, L. Wang, J. Yang, and et al., “M3-uda: A new benchmark for unsupervised domain adaptive fetal cardiac structure detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 11 621–11 630

2024
[21]

Farn: fetal anatomy reasoning network for detection with global context semantic and local topology relationship,

L. Zhao, G. Tan, Q. Wu, and et al., “Farn: fetal anatomy reasoning network for detection with global context semantic and local topology relationship,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2024

2024
[22]

Efficient deep reinforcement learning-enabled recommendation,

G. Pang, X. Wang, L. Wang, and et al., “Efficient deep reinforcement learning-enabled recommendation,”IEEE Transactions on Network Sci- ence and Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 871–886, 2022

2022
[23]

Transfsm: Fetal anatomy segmen- tation and biometric measurement in ultrasound images using a hybrid transformer,

L. Zhao, G. Tan, and B. d. a. Pu, “Transfsm: Fetal anatomy segmen- tation and biometric measurement in ultrasound images using a hybrid transformer,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2023

2023
[24]

Fetal cardiac structure detection using multi-task learning,

J. He, L. Yang, Y . Zhu, and et al., “Fetal cardiac structure detection using multi-task learning,” inInternational Conference on Intelligent Computing. Springer, 2024, pp. 405–419

2024
[25]

Shift-convnets: Small convolutional kernel with large kernel effects,

D. Li, L. Li, Z. Chen, and et al., “Shift-convnets: Small convolutional kernel with large kernel effects,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12736, 2024

2024 arXiv
[26]

Understanding adamw through proximal methods and scale-freeness,

Z. Zhuang, M. Liu, A. Cutkosky, and et al., “Understanding adamw through proximal methods and scale-freeness,”Transactions on machine learning research, 2022

2022
[27]

Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels,

Z. Zhang and M. Sabuncu, “Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels,”Advances in neural information processing systems, 2018

2018
[28]

Global attention mechanism: Retain information to enhance channel-spatial interactions,

Y . Liu, Z. Shao, and N. Hoffmann, “Global attention mechanism: Retain information to enhance channel-spatial interactions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05561, 2021

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [29]

Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,

C. Xu, J. Han, and F. Nie, “Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,” 1997

work page 1997

[2] [1]

Fetal mri: A force for prenatal imaging of birth defects,

G. Ning, “Fetal mri: A force for prenatal imaging of birth defects,” Chinese Journal of Maternal and Child Clinical Medicine (Electronic version), vol. 17, no. 03, p. 257, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [2]

Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects: echocardio- graphy,

H. Y . Sun, “Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects: echocardio- graphy,”Transl. Pediatr., vol. 10, no. 8, p. 2210, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [3]

Role of four-chamber heart ultrasound images in automatic assessment of fetal heart: A systematic understanding,

A. Gudigar, R. U, J. Samanth, and et al., “Role of four-chamber heart ultrasound images in automatic assessment of fetal heart: A systematic understanding,” inInformatics, vol. 9, no. 2. MDPI, 2022, p. 34

work page 2022

[5] [4]

An in-depth interpretation of the guidelines for prenatal ul- trasound examination (2012) by the sonographers’ association of the chinese medical doctors’ association

S. Li, “An in-depth interpretation of the guidelines for prenatal ul- trasound examination (2012) by the sonographers’ association of the chinese medical doctors’ association.”Chinese Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine: Electronic Edition, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–9, 2014

work page 2012

[6] [5]

Aium practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations,

J. P. Crino, H. J. Finberg, F. Frieden, and et al., “Aium practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations,”J. Ultrasound Med., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1083–1101, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [6]

Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan

L. J. Salomon, Z. Alfirevic, V . Berghella, and et al., “Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 37, no. 1, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [7]

Deep learning in image classification using residual network (resnet) variants for detection of colorectal cancer,

D. Sarwinda, R. H. Paradisa, A. Bustamam, and et al., “Deep learning in image classification using residual network (resnet) variants for detection of colorectal cancer,”Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 179, pp. 423–431, 2021

work page 2021