Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 25 references

GANet-Seg: Adversarial Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation with Hybrid Generative Models

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GANet-Seg claims that a U-Net trained with edge-weighted adversarial feedback from a pre-trained normal-brain GAN achieves more accurate brain tumor segmentation than four published supervised baselines, with tumor-core Dice of 88.84%.

desk verdict A plausible adversarial-GAN architecture for tumor segmentation undermined by a results table that contradicts its own abstract and discussion. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21245 v1 pith:5SGM3FIB submitted 2025-06-26 eess.IV cs.CV

Qifei Cui , Xinyu Lu This is my paper
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords braintumorsegmentationGANU-NetadversariallearningMRIanomalydetectionBraTSdatasetlesion-wiseDice
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 brain-tumor segmentation accuracy can be improved by coupling a U-Net with a GAN that has learned the appearance of normal brain MRI. The U-Net proposes a tumor mask; the GAN's generator fills the masked region with plausible normal tissue, and the discriminator's per-pixel abnormality scores are weighted by a Laplacian edge map and used as an adversarial training loss. On a 36-case test set drawn from BraTS 2020, the combined system reports higher tumor-core and lesion-wise Dice than four published baselines (tumor-core Dice 88.84 percent versus 82.07 for the strongest baseline). The wider claim is that abundant unlabeled normal-brain scans can substitute for a large share of pixel-level tumor annotations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pre-trained normal-brain GAN's discriminator, repurposed as a per-pixel abnormality scorer. A U-Net mask is expanded by a 5×5 max-pooling and passed through a 3×3 Laplacian filter to form an edge map; that map is dot-multiplied with the discriminator's output to build the edge-guided adversarial loss. Training proceeds in phases—segmentation loss alone for the first ten epochs, then sparsity, size-consistency, and adversarial losses with weights set inversely to gradient magnitudes—which stabilizes the joint U-Net/GAN optimization.

What would settle it

Re-run Optimized U-Net, nnU-Net, Swin-UNETR, and UMamba on the exact 36-case split with the paper's preprocessing and then compare TC Dice and HD95 with GANet-Seg; if any baseline equals or exceeds the reported 88.84 TC Dice under identical conditions, the central comparative claim fails. A cheaper check is recomputing both volume-weighted and lesion-wise Dice on the same predictions, since the paper reports both in Table 2 and any large inconsistency would indicate metric or protocol drift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GANet-Seg claims that the discriminator of a GAN pretrained only on normal brain tissue can act as a pixel-level tumor boundary supervisor, not just a whole-image anomaly detector. During training, the U-Net's mask occludes the suspected lesion, the generator reconstructs the occluded area as normal anatomy, and the discriminator's response, multiplied by the mask's downsampled edge map, produces an adversarial loss that concentrates on border disagreement. The reported consequence is segmentation that exceeds the cited baselines on the tumor-core region (WT 81.28, ET 79.81, TC 88.84 Dice) and on lesion-wise Dice (TC 86.28 versus 78.05), while the authors note the discriminator does not itself distinguish tumor sub-regions.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the published baseline scores in [26] were obtained under the same test cases, preprocessing, cropping, and metric protocol as the authors' self-selected 36-case BraTS 2020 test set, since none of the baselines was re-run here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, tumor-core segmentation can be improved without any new labeled sub-region data, since the adversarial signal comes from normal-brain images.
  • The framework's reliance on unlabeled normal MRIs implies that the labeled-data requirement for a usable segmentation model can be lowered, which matters where expert annotations are scarce.
  • Because the adversarial loss is concentrated on mask edges, the approach predicts that boundary refinement, rather than global appearance matching, is what drives the reported Dice gains.
  • The reported lesion-wise Dice improvements (e.g., TC 86.28 versus 78.05) imply better handling of small or fragmented tumor components, since lesion-wise metrics weight every lesion equally regardless of size.
  • The authors' stated 2D-slice limitation implies the current gains are captured from slice-level cues; extending to full 3D volumes is the paper's own next step and would test whether volumetric context adds further accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same discriminator-feedback mechanism could transfer to other lesion types—multiple sclerosis lesions, stroke, or lung nodules—where normal anatomy is abundant and annotated lesions are scarce; the paper only demonstrates it for brain tumors.
  • A direct testable extension is to condition the generator or discriminator on sub-region labels so the adversarial signal can refine boundaries of edema and enhancing tumor separately, which the paper leaves as future work.
  • The reported TC Dice gap (88.84 versus 82.07) is large enough that re-running the baselines on the same 36-case protocol would be a strong check on whether the advantage survives a like-for-like comparison.
  • The edge-guided adversarial loss behaves like a boundary-aware regularizer, so combining it with contour-refinement post-processing is a plausible cheap add-on; the paper does not test this.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GANet-Seg, a brain tumor segmentation framework that combines a U-Net segmentation module with a GAN pretrained on normal brain MRI. The GAN is used to reconstruct occluded tumor regions, and an edge-guided adversarial loss derived from a Laplacian-filtered mask and a PatchGAN discriminator is added to refine boundaries. The authors report results on a self-selected 36-case test set from BraTS 2020 and compare against Optimized U-Net, Swin-UNETR, nnU-Net, and UMamba, with baseline numbers taken from a separate paper. The abstract claims high accuracy in both lesion-wise Dice and HD95 relative to baselines, and the paper frames the method as reducing dependence on fully annotated data.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, the idea of using a pretrained normal-brain GAN as a source of anomaly-aware feedback for tumor segmentation would be a useful contribution to semi-supervised medical image segmentation, especially for datasets with scarce annotations. The paper also provides explicit loss formulations and a clear architectural diagram, which are helpful starting points for replication. However, the central comparative claim is contradicted by the paper's own table, and the evaluation protocol does not permit a fair comparison with the cited baselines. The current evidence does not support the stated contributions, so the significance as presented is low.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract states that the model achieves "high sensitivity and accuracy in both lesion-wise Dice and HD95 metrics than the baseline," but Table 2 does not support this. For the whole tumor (WT), GANet-Seg reports Dice 81.28 versus UMamba's 85.69, and for WT HD95 it reports 27.06 versus UMamba's 14.51. For enhancing tumor (ET) HD95, GANet-Seg reports 50.13 versus UMamba's 37.48, and it is also worse than the other listed baselines on these metrics. The only region where GANet-Seg is consistently better is the tumor core (TC), and the lesion-wise Dice columns generally improve. This is a load-bearing discrepancy because the paper's contribution is explicitly framed as outperforming baselines on both Dice and HD95.
  2. [Section 5.5.2 and Section 5.1.2] The baseline results for Optimized U-Net, nnU-Net, Swin-UNETR, and UMamba are not re-run on the authors' test set; they are copied from reference [26]. The authors use a self-selected set of 36 BraTS 2020 samples, and there is no evidence that the preprocessing, the exact test split, the evaluation code, or the metric definitions match those used in [26]. Without a common evaluation protocol, every comparative statement in Table 2 is invalid. The paper should either reproduce the baselines under the identical protocol or restrict claims to descriptive results without comparative language.
  3. [Section 5.4.1, Appendix A.3.2, and Abstract] The claim that the method "minimizes the dependency on fully annotated data" is not supported by the experimental design. The U-Net is trained with full ground-truth masks using cross-entropy and Dice losses, and the size consistency loss in Eq. (6) uses S_label, the labeled pixel count from ground truth, for every training slice. The GAN pretraining uses unlabeled normal-brain data, but the segmentation training still requires dense pixel-level annotations for all training subjects. The paper should either quantify the reduction in annotation demand or soften this claim substantially.
  4. [Section 5.5 and Table 2] No variance, confidence interval, or statistical significance is reported for any metric, and the test set consists of only 36 cases. Given that the reported differences between GANet-Seg and UMamba are small for several metrics (e.g., ET Dice 79.81 vs. 77.41), the absence of any uncertainty measure makes it impossible to determine whether the observed differences are meaningful. At minimum, the authors should report per-case standard deviations or confidence intervals and state the statistical test used.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] The model name is inconsistently written as "GANet-Seg" in the title and abstract and "GANnet-Seg" in Section 5.5.2 and Table 2; please unify the terminology.
  2. [Section 5 (Experimental Results)] "Unbuntu 24.02" should be "Ubuntu 24.04" or the correct version; this appears to be a typo.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The sentence "The GAN pretraining module to learn the is designed to learn the distribution of normal brain" contains a duplicated fragment and should be rewritten.
  4. [Appendix E] Figures 4, 5, and 6 duplicate the captions and content of Figures 1 and 2 from the main text; the appendix should be removed or the figures should be cross-referenced rather than repeated.
  5. [References] References [3] and [19] appear to cite the same BRATS paper; please consolidate the duplicated reference.
  6. [Appendix D, Eq. (18)] The notation for the lesion-wise Dice coefficient is unclear: the denominator is written as (|P_i|+|T_i|)/2 without showing the factor 2 in the numerator, which can confuse readers about the equivalence to the standard Dice definition.
  7. [Section 4.1.3] The description of the edge map operation "a max-pooling with stride size of 5×5" is ambiguous; it should specify the pooling window and stride separately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the segmentation pipeline is trained on external labels and evaluated on a held-out set; imported baselines raise benchmark-validity concerns but are not circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The claimed contribution is a U-Net segmentation module trained on BraTS 2020 ground-truth labels, combined with a GAN pretrained on the separate NFBS normal-brain dataset, and an edge-weighted adversarial loss derived from the discriminator's patch-level real/fake output. The final reported quantities (Dice, HD95, lesion-wise Dice in Table 2) are computed by comparing predictions against ground-truth labels on a 36-case test split; none of these metrics is defined in terms of a fitted parameter or an input to the model. The size-consistency loss (Eq. 6) uses the labeled pixel count S_label from ground truth, but this is a training-supervision term rather than a "prediction" of test performance, and the paper does not claim to predict S_label. The adversarial loss (Eq. 7) uses the pretrained discriminator on reconstructed images, and that discriminator was trained on normal brain images, not on the segmentation labels; therefore the adversarial feedback is not equivalent to the target metric by construction. The baseline numbers in Table 2 are imported from Heras Rivera et al. [26] rather than re-run under the authors' own 36-case protocol, which is a serious benchmarking-validity risk but not a circularity defect: it does not make the paper's own result equal to its input. No load-bearing self-citation appears: references to Ghassemi et al. [1] and BrainGAN [2] are external prior work, and no author-specific uniqueness theorem or ansatz is invoked to force the architecture. The abstract's wording about surpassing baseline Dice and HD95 is contradicted by parts of Table 2 (e.g., WT Dice and HD95), but that is a correctness/consistency issue, not circularity. Overall, the central claim has independent empirical content: the segmentation metrics could have come out badly, and they are not determined by construction from the training losses or the pretrained GAN. Score 0 is therefore appropriate under the rule that a non-finding is the honest result when no step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supervised segmentation plus a pretrained GAN. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. However, many hyperparameters are tuned by hand, and the evaluation relies on unverified comparability with external baselines and a self-selected test split.

free parameters (9)
  • Initial learning rate alpha_0 = 6e-5
    Chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Learning rate decay power = 0.75
    Reported in Sec 5.4.1; no ablation.
  • Adam momentum beta1, beta2 = 0.9, 0.999
    Standard values; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Weight decay coefficient = 0.0001
    Set to prevent overfitting; no ablation.
  • Batch size = 80
    Chosen for memory and gradient stability.
  • Training epochs = 30
    Both U-Net and GAN trained for 30 epochs; no early stopping for U-Net except GAN.
  • Discriminator sensitivity threshold = 0.4 (Table 1)
    Thresholds 0.1-0.4 tested; 0.4 gives 98.11% sensitivity but highest FP; unclear if used in final evaluation.
  • Loss weights via dynamic balancing = lambda_i = 1/(||grad L_i||+epsilon)
    Adaptive scheme, no fixed values; epsilon unspecified.
  • Size-consistency label pixel count S_label = from ground truth
    Uses labeled pixel count, so the method depends on full annotation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BraTS 2020 manual annotations are correct ground truth for tumor sub-regions
    Used as supervised labels for segmentation loss and as reference for all metrics (Sec 5.1.2).
  • domain assumption NFBS T1 normal-brain data is representative of the normal brain distribution needed for GAN pretraining
    GAN is pretrained on 125 skull-stripped T1 scans from NFBS, then applied to multi-modal BraTS images with different modalities and preprocessing (Sec 5.1.1).
  • domain assumption Baseline results from Heras Rivera et al. [26] are directly comparable to the authors' self-selected 36-case test set
    Table 2 combines numbers from a different study without re-running baselines on the same split (Sec 5.5.2). This assumption is likely false.
  • domain assumption 2D slice processing with blank-slice removal preserves enough spatial context for valid tumor segmentation
    The paper processes MRI as 2D slices and excludes blank-mask slices (Sec 5.3, Appendix E), and acknowledges loss of 3D context in Sec 6.
  • standard math Standard optimization assumptions for Adam and adversarial training (e.g., convergence, stable gradients)
    Training uses Adam and phase-based loss weighting (Sec 5.4, Appendix A.5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GANet-Seg: Adversarial Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation with Hybrid Generative Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SGM3FIB

@misc{pith2026250621245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GANet-Seg: Adversarial Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation with Hybrid Generative Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SGM3FIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21245}
}
read the original abstract

This work introduces a novel framework for brain tumor segmentation leveraging pre-trained GANs and Unet architectures. By combining a global anomaly detection module with a refined mask generation network, the proposed model accurately identifies tumor-sensitive regions and iteratively enhances segmentation precision using adversarial loss constraints. Multi-modal MRI data and synthetic image augmentation are employed to improve robustness and address the challenge of limited annotated datasets. Experimental results on the BraTS dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach, achieving high sensitivity and accuracy in both lesion-wise Dice and HD95 metrics than the baseline. This scalable method minimizes the dependency on fully annotated data, paving the way for practical real-world applications in clinical settings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Heras Rivera et al.An Ensemble Approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation and Synthesis

    Juampablo E. Heras Rivera et al.An Ensemble Approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation and Synthesis. 2024. arXiv:2411.17617 [eess.IV].URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17617. 8 REFERENCES APPENDIXA. MATHEMATICALFORMULATION OFLOSSFUNCTIONS The proposed framework integrates multiple loss functions to optimize the GAN and UNet modules collaboratively. The loss func...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [15]

    Brain MRI Analysis with Generative Adversarial Networks: A Comprehensive Survey

    John Doe, Jane Smith, and Alice Zhang. “Brain MRI Analysis with Generative Adversarial Networks: A Comprehensive Survey”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17317(2024).URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2402.17317

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Deep neural network with generative adversarial networks pre-training for brain tumor classification based on MR images

    Navid Ghassemi, Afshin Shoeibi, and Modjtaba Rouhani. “Deep neural network with generative adversarial networks pre-training for brain tumor classification based on MR images”. In:Biomedical Signal Processing and Control57 (2020), p. 101678

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    BrainGAN: Brain MRI Image Generation and Classification Framework Using GAN Architectures and CNN Models

    HHN Alrashedy et al. “BrainGAN: Brain MRI Image Generation and Classification Framework Using GAN Architectures and CNN Models”. In:Sensors (Basel)22.11 (June 2022), p. 4297.DOI: 10.3390/s22114297

    work page doi:10.3390/s22114297 2022

  5. [4]

    The basics of brain development

    Joan Stiles and Terry L. Jernigan. “The basics of brain development”. In:Neuropsychology Review20.4 (2010), pp. 327–348.DOI:10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4 2010

  6. [5]

    Epidemiology of glial and non-glial brain tumours in Europe

    Emanuele Crocetti et al. “Epidemiology of glial and non-glial brain tumours in Europe”. In:European Journal of Cancer48.10 (2012), pp. 1532–1542.ISSN: 0959-8049.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca. 2011.12.013

    doi:10.1016/j.ejca 2012

  7. [6]

    Cancer statistics, 2023

    Rebecca L Siegel et al. “Cancer statistics, 2023”. In:CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians73.1 (Jan. 2023), pp. 17–48.ISSN: 1542-4863.DOI:10.3322/caac.21763

    doi:10.3322/caac.21763 2023

  8. [7]

    State of the art survey on MRI brain tumor segmentation

    Nelly Gordillo, Eduard Montseny, and Pilar Sobrevilla. “State of the art survey on MRI brain tumor segmentation”. In:Magnetic Resonance Imaging31.8 (2013), pp. 1426–1438.ISSN: 0730-725X.DOI: https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 / j . mri . 2013 . 05 . 002.URL: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article/pii/S0730725X13001872

    work page 2013

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Tumor-Cut: Segmentation of Brain Tumors on Contrast-Enhanced MR Images for Radiosurgery Applications

    Andac Hamamci et al. “Tumor-Cut: Segmentation of Brain Tumors on Contrast-Enhanced MR Images for Radiosurgery Applications”. In:IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging31.3 (Mar. 2012), pp. 790–804.DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2011.2181857

    2012

  2. [9]

    Recent deep learning-based brain tumor segmentation models using multi-modality magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective survey

    Zain Ul Abidin et al. “Recent deep learning-based brain tumor segmentation models using multi-modality magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective survey”. In:Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology12 (July 2024), p. 1392807.DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1392807 .URL: https://do...

    2024

  3. [10]

    U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. “U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation”. In:Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th Inter- national Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, P...

    2015 doi

  4. [11]

    MultiResUNet: Rethinking the U-Net architecture for multimodal biomedical image segmentation

    Nafis Ibtehaz and M. Sohel Rahman. “MultiResUNet: Rethinking the U-Net architecture for multimodal biomedical image segmentation”. In:Neural Networks121 (2020), pp. 74–87.DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet. 2019.08.025

    2020 doi

  5. [12]

    UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentation

    Zongwei Zhou et al. “UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentation”. In:Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support. Springer, 2018, pp. 3–11

    2018

  6. [13]

    MM-UNet: A multimodality brain tumor segmentation network in MRI images

    Lin Zhao et al. “MM-UNet: A multimodality brain tumor segmentation network in MRI images”. In:Frontiers in Oncology12 (2022), p. 950706.DOI:10.3389/fonc.2022.950706

    2022

  7. [14]

    Cross-modality deep feature learning for brain tumor segmentation

    Deyu Zhang et al. “Cross-modality deep feature learning for brain tumor segmentation”. In:Pattern Recognition 110 (2021), p. 107562.DOI:10.1016/j.patcog.2020.107562

    2021

  8. [16]

    nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmen- tation

    Fabian Isensee et al. “nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmen- tation”. In:Nature Methods18.2 (2021), pp. 203–211.DOI: 10.1038/s41592- 020- 01008- z .URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Accessed: 2024-12-05

    Compute – Amazon EC2 Instance Types – AWS. Accessed: 2024-12-05. n.d.URL: https://aws.amazon. com/ec2/instance-types/

    2024

  10. [18]

    The preprocessed connectomes project repository of manually corrected skull-stripped T1- weighted anatomical MRI data

    Brian Puccio et al. “The preprocessed connectomes project repository of manually corrected skull-stripped T1- weighted anatomical MRI data”. In:GigaScience5.1 (2016), p. 45.DOI: 10.1186/s13742-016-0150-5

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS)

    Bjoern H. Menze et al. “The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS)”. In:IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging34.10 (2015), pp. 1993–2024.DOI:10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694. REFERENCES 7

    2015

  12. [20]

    Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features

    Spyridon Bakas et al. “Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features”. In:Scientific Data4 (2017), p. 170117.DOI:10.1038/sdata.2017.117

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Spyridon Bakas et al.Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Pro- gression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challenge. 2019. arXiv: 1811.02629 [cs.CV].URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02629

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    ¨Ozg¨un C ¸ic ¸ek et al.3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation. 2016. arXiv: 1606.06650 [cs.CV].URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06650

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ALL-Net: Anatomical information lesion-wise loss function integrated into neural network for multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation

    Hang Zhang et al. “ALL-Net: Anatomical information lesion-wise loss function integrated into neural network for multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation”. In:NeuroImage: Clinical32 (2021), p. 102854.ISSN: 2213-1582.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102854 .URL: https://ww...

    2021

  16. [24]

    The Use of Robust Local Hausdorff Distances in Accuracy Assessment for Image Alignment of Brain MRI

    E. Billet, A. Fedorov, and N. Chrisochoides. “The Use of Robust Local Hausdorff Distances in Accuracy Assessment for Image Alignment of Brain MRI”. In:The Insight Journal(May 2008).DOI: 10 . 54294 / y57wd7

    2008

  17. [25]

    A Symmetrical Approach to Brain Tumor Segmen- tation in MRI Using Deep Learning and Threefold Attention Mechanism

    Ziaur Rahman, Ruihong Zhang, and Jameel Ahmed Bhutto. “A Symmetrical Approach to Brain Tumor Segmen- tation in MRI Using Deep Learning and Threefold Attention Mechanism”. In:Symmetry15.10 (2023), p. 1912. DOI:10.3390/sym15101912.URL:https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/15/10/1912

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.