Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

MedDiff-FT: Data-Efficient Diffusion Model Fine-tuning with Structural Guidance for Controllable Medical Image Synthesis

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 MedDiff-FT fine-tunes Stable Diffusion with mask guidance to generate synthetic image-mask pairs that lift a state-of-the-art segmenter's Dice by an average of about 1% on five medical datasets, starting from as few as 30 real pairs.

desk verdict Plausible new combination for medical image-mask generation, but the reported 1% Dice gain is within noise and the method has an undefined core function. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00377 v1 pith:7YTYNGQB submitted 2025-07-01 cs.CV

Jianhao Xie , Ziang Zhang , Zhenyu Weng , Yuesheng Zhu , Guibo Luo This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords medicalimagesegmentationdiffusionmodelcontrolledgenerationdataaugmentationStablefine-tuningsyntheticimage-maskpairsDicescoremask-guidedsynthesis
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

MedDiff-FT is a method for generating synthetic medical image-mask pairs by fine-tuning a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model on as few as 30 real image-mask pairs. The paper's central claim is that adding these generated pairs to the training set improves the segmentation Dice score of a state-of-the-art model (nnU-Net) by an average of about 1% across five public datasets covering skin, breast ultrasound, and thyroid images. To achieve this, the method trains with a mask-weighted reconstruction loss, guides inference with a dynamic mask that controls lesion location and shape, uses a small DDPM to generate diverse masks, and filters low-quality outputs using a DINOv2-based similarity check plus mask erosion. If the claim holds, the approach offers a low-resource path to data augmentation for medical imaging, where annotated data is often scarce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the mask-weighted training loss (equation 1) and the inference-time denoising fusion (equation 2). The training loss $L = \mathbb{E}_{t,X,c,\epsilon}[w_t \| M \odot (\hat X_\theta(\alpha_t X + \beta_t \epsilon, c) - X)\|^2]$ forces the fine-tuned U-Net to focus its generative capacity on the lesion region defined by the mask $M$. At inference, equation (2) combines the noise-prediction denoised latent inside the mask with the previous-step latent outside the mask through the feature preservation function $F$, which the paper states but never explicitly defines; this fusion is what enforces the spatial constraint that the background stays intact while the lesion is synthesized. A small DDPM-based mask generator produces the masks used to condition generation, and a DINOv2-based similarity filter plus mask erosion selects and refines the final pairs.

What would settle it

Inspect a set of generated image-mask pairs: feed each generated image to a trained segmenter, take the predicted mask, and compute the Dice overlap with the generator's input mask; if the overlap is low (for example below the level achieved on real pairs) or if the background outside the mask is visibly altered, the central fusion mechanism is not doing its job. A complementary check is to rerun the five-dataset experiment with the fusion function $F$ in equation (2) replaced by a trivial copy of the original latent outside the mask; if the Dice gains vanish, the unstated $F$ is essential, and if they persist, the method's success is actually due to the fine-tuning itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a diffusion foundation model can be adapted to controlled medical image synthesis with only tens of image-mask pairs, by fine-tuning the U-Net of Stable Diffusion 1.5 on lesion regions while using trigger words to bind prompts to the lesion domain. At inference, the denoising step in equation (2), $x_{t-1} = M \odot [\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha_t}}(x_t - \frac{\beta_t}{\sqrt{1-\bar{\alpha}_t}}\epsilon_\theta(x_t,t))] + (1-M)\odot F(x_t^{\mathrm{prev}})$, blends the original image latent and the predicted denoised latent according to the mask, so the model generates anatomically coherent lesions at the specified location and shape while preserving the background. A lightweight DDPM-based mask generator produces new masks to increase diversity, and an automated quality assessment discards generations whose DINOv2-feature cosine similarity to real images is too high or too low; mask edges are then corroded to improve mask-image alignment. The paper validates this pipeline by training four segmentation models (UPerNet, DeepLabV3+, Swin Transformer, nnU-Net) with and without the generated pairs on five datasets, reporting consistent Dice gains and an average gain of about 1% for nnU-Net.

Load-bearing premise

The method's success rests on the unstated assumption that the blending rule in the denoising step, which the paper never writes down explicitly, can keep the non-lesion parts of the image unchanged while replacing only the region inside the mask; if that blending is even slightly wrong, the generated images will not match their masks and the acknowledged segmentation gains would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding 1,500 to 2,750 generated image-mask pairs to the training set improves Dice for all four segmentation architectures on all five datasets, with the largest absolute gains on the ultrasound datasets (BUSI and DDTI) that have the lowest baseline scores.
  • Fine-tuning requires about 30 real image-mask pairs, under 30 minutes of training, and less than 24 GB of memory, so the pipeline is feasible on a single consumer-grade GPU.
  • When only 30 real pairs are available, MedDiff-FT outperforms ControlNet and T2I-Adapter as a source of synthetic training data, suggesting that mask-guided fine-tuning is better suited to the small-data medical regime than adding a separate control adapter.
  • The automated quality filter (removing generations too similar or too dissimilar to real images) and the mask corrosion step both contribute to the final segmentation gains, as shown by the ablation experiments.
  • The same fine-tuning pipeline, trained with inverted masks, can repair lesion regions into healthy backgrounds, enabling the method to generate diverse backgrounds even for datasets that do not natively provide them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the average Dice gain reproduces on a broader set of modalities and segmentation targets, the method could serve as a general-purpose data augmentation layer for medical imaging, potentially reducing the annotation burden for rare-disease datasets where only a handful of labeled cases exist.
  • The paper leaves the function $F$ in equation (2) unspecified; a natural ablation would replace it with a hard latent copy outside the mask or with a soft transition, and compare the generated image-mask alignment and downstream Dice, which would reveal how much of the method's success really depends on this fusion rule.
  • The quality filter threshold on DINOv2 cosine similarity is likely modality-sensitive; tuning this threshold per imaging modality rather than using one global rule could yield further gains, since the intra-class variability of dermoscopic and ultrasound images differs markedly.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MedDiff-FT, a pipeline that fine-tunes Stable Diffusion 1.5 on a small set (about 30) of medical image-mask pairs, then generates synthetic image-mask pairs for data augmentation. Generation is controlled by an adaptive guiding mask defined in Eq. (2), a lightweight DDPM-based mask generator adds diversity, and a DINOv2-based quality filter with mask corrosion is applied in post-processing. The method is evaluated by adding 1,500 or 2,750 generated pairs to five medical segmentation datasets (PH2, ISIC-2017, ISIC-2018, BUSI, DDTI) and measuring Dice score of four segmentation models (UPerNet, DeepLabV3 Plus, Swin Transformer, nnU-Net). The abstract claims an average 1% Dice improvement over state-of-the-art methods, while the introduction states an average 3% accuracy improvement. The central claim is that the generated pairs reliably improve downstream segmentation performance.

Significance. If established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it targets a real problem (scarcity of annotated medical images), proposes a resource-efficient alternative to training a diffusion model from scratch, and evaluates the synthetic data through downstream segmentation performance rather than only through generation metrics. The authors make the code publicly available and provide comparisons against ControlNet and T2I-Adapter, which strengthens the empirical component. However, the central quantitative claim is not currently supported by the evidence as reported: Table 1 contains single runs without error bars or significance testing, several entries show changes within the expected run-to-run noise of nnU-Net, and some entries move in the opposite direction. The paper's contribution is therefore plausible but not yet demonstrated; the needed fixes are experimental (multi-seed evaluation, statistical reporting, and explicit hyperparameter choices) rather than a fundamental redesign.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1] The central claim of an average ~1% Dice improvement is not supported by the reported evidence because all numbers in Table 1 come from single runs without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Many differences are small relative to typical nnU-Net run-to-run variation: for example, nnU-Net improves by +0.40 on ISIC-2017 at +1500 pairs and by +0.49 on PH2 at +1500 pairs, while UPerNet degrades by -1.93 on DDTI at +1500 pairs and Swin Transformer improves by only +0.52 on ISIC-2018 at +2750 pairs. I request repeated-seed means and standard deviations (or confidence intervals) for every cell in Table 1, along with a statistical test of the aggregate claim, and I ask the authors to quantify how many of the individual comparisons are beyond the expected noise level.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) defines the inference-time denoising step as a blend between the predicted denoised latent and F(x_{t-1}^{prev}), but the function F is never defined. The phrase "feature preservation function" is not a specification; the reader cannot tell whether F is an identity mapping, a mask-eroded copy, a frozen encoder output, or something else. This matters because the claimed alignment between generated images and masks depends on how the background latent is preserved while the lesion region is replaced. Please provide the exact definition of F, state whether all quantities in Eq. (2) are in latent space or pixel space, and describe how the mask M is resized or transformed when applied to latents.
  3. [§2.2, §3.2] The automated quality assessment protocol is described only qualitatively: DINOv2 cosine-similarity thresholds are never given, and the corrosion operation is described without its kernel size, number of iterations, or structuring element. These parameters are load-bearing because the ablations in Section 3.3 claim that filtering and corrosion improve performance. Please report the actual threshold values and corrosion settings used for each dataset, and include a sensitivity analysis showing how the downstream Dice changes as these parameters vary. Without this, the protocol cannot be reproduced or assessed.
  4. [§3.3, Tables 3 and 4] The text states that filtering 'improved segmentation performance' and that corroding the masks 'further improved the results,' but the tables contain multiple counterexamples. In Table 3, Swin Transformer on ISIC-2018 drops from 86.55 to 86.33 with filtering, nnU-Net on PH2 drops from 94.72 to 94.69 with filtering, DeepLabV3 Plus on ISIC-2018 drops from 87.87 to 87.55 with corrosion, and nnU-Net on BUSI drops from 78.69 to 78.34 with corrosion. In Table 4, the number of background images is claimed to improve results monotonically, yet nnU-Net on ISIC-2017 goes 85.31 → 85.37 → 84.92 as the count increases from 20 to 30 to 50. Please either report a statistical analysis that supports the directional claims despite these exceptions, or revise the claims to reflect the mixed pattern.
  5. [§3.2, §3.3] The selection of the number of generated pairs (1,500 and 2,750) and the number of background images (20, 30, 50) appears to have been made after observing which configurations improve the downstream results, with no clear separation between a validation-based model-selection procedure and the final test evaluation. This introduces a tuning risk for the central claim. Please clarify the protocol: were the ablation configurations chosen using only the validation set, and were the Table 1 results obtained on a test set that was never used for configuration selection? If the same test set was used both for selecting the configuration and for reporting the headline improvement, the effective evidence is weaker than reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract reports an average improvement of '1% in Dice score' while the introduction reports an average '3% accuracy improvement'; these numbers are inconsistent and the latter is not defined as Dice or accuracy. Please unify the terminology and the quantitative claim.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The loss in Eq. (1) uses a mask M and noise-schedule coefficients alpha_t and beta_t, but M is not defined as a binary matrix, and the relationship between alpha_t, beta_t, and the standard DDPM/DDIM schedule is not stated. Please specify the exact weighting and whether M is normalized.
  3. [Table 2] The name of the baseline is written inconsistently as 'T2I-adapter' in the caption and 'T2i-adapter' in the table; please standardize the spelling.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says that for skin images 'background images are restored from originals using our approach,' but the method section says a separate fine-tuned model with inverted masks performs this restoration. The distinction is confusing; please clarify what is shown in the figure and how the 'restored' backgrounds are produced.
  5. [§3.1] The segmentation training details are incomplete: the learning rate, optimizer, scheduler, and validation criterion for model selection are not reported, which matters for assessing the comparability of the four baselines and for reproducing the numbers in Table 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the downstream Dice evaluation is externally grounded.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that synthetic image-mask pairs from MedDiff-FT improve state-of-the-art segmentation, is evaluated by adding generated pairs to training sets and measuring Dice on held-out test sets from five public datasets. This makes the result externally grounded rather than defined by the method's own outputs. The training loss in Eq. (1) and the inference blend in Eq. (2) define an algorithm, not a self-referential prediction; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The only author self-citations, Refs. [26] and [27], appear in the introduction as prior-work positioning and are not load-bearing for the method or the evaluation. Filtering thresholds and generation counts are empirical choices supported by ablations, not construction-level equivalences. Concerns about missing error bars or the undefined function F in Eq. (2) are correctness and rigor issues, not circularity.

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

The method introduces several tuned hyperparameters and relies on strong assumptions about the generative model and the undefined feature preservation function. There are no invented entities; all modules are built from known components.

free parameters (4)
  • DINOv2 similarity filter thresholds (lower and upper bounds) = not reported
    Images with cosine similarity below or above these thresholds are discarded; thresholds are never given, so the filter is a post hoc selection that is not reproducible.
  • Corrosion kernel size and iterations for mask shrinking = not reported
    Morphological corrosion is applied to masks to improve alignment; the kernel and iteration count are not specified, so the effect depends on unstated choices.
  • Number of background images used for generation = 50 (best in ablation)
    Ablation over 20, 30, 50 shows 50 yields highest Dice; this is a selected hyperparameter rather than a fixed rule.
  • Number of generated image-mask pairs = 1,500 and 2,750
    Two quantities are used; the larger set usually helps more, but the choice is arbitrary and affects results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion 1.5, pretrained on natural images, can be fine-tuned to medical imaging with only 30 image-mask pairs without mode collapse.
    The entire method rests on this data-efficiency claim (Section 1, 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The guidance mask in Eq. 2 preserves background fidelity while inserting lesions, assuming F is a proper feature preservation function.
    F is not defined, so the behavior of Eq. 2 is an unverified postulation.
  • domain assumption DINOv2 cosine similarity is a reliable proxy for whether a generated image is suitable for segmentation training.
    The quality filter in Section 2.2 assumes feature-space similarity correlates with training value.
  • domain assumption The stochastic mask generator (a DDPM trained only on masks) produces masks whose shapes and locations are plausible for the target anatomy.
    This drives diversity; if the masks are anatomically implausible, generated images will mislead segmentation models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MedDiff-FT: Data-Efficient Diffusion Model Fine-tuning with Structural Guidance for Controllable Medical Image Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YTYNGQB

@misc{pith2026250700377,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MedDiff-FT: Data-Efficient Diffusion Model Fine-tuning with Structural Guidance for Controllable Medical Image Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YTYNGQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00377}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in deep learning for medical image segmentation are often limited by the scarcity of high-quality training data.While diffusion models provide a potential solution by generating synthetic images, their effectiveness in medical imaging remains constrained due to their reliance on large-scale medical datasets and the need for higher image quality. To address these challenges, we present MedDiff-FT, a controllable medical image generation method that fine-tunes a diffusion foundation model to produce medical images with structural dependency and domain specificity in a data-efficient manner. During inference, a dynamic adaptive guiding mask enforces spatial constraints to ensure anatomically coherent synthesis, while a lightweight stochastic mask generator enhances diversity through hierarchical randomness injection. Additionally, an automated quality assessment protocol filters suboptimal outputs using feature-space metrics, followed by mask corrosion to refine fidelity. Evaluated on five medical segmentation datasets,MedDiff-FT's synthetic image-mask pairs improve SOTA method's segmentation performance by an average of 1% in Dice score. The framework effectively balances generation quality, diversity, and computational efficiency, offering a practical solution for medical data augmentation. The code is available at https://github.com/JianhaoXie1/MedDiff-FT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00377 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure presents generated results from our method. The first two rows display skin images, where background images are restored from originals using our approach. The last two rows show breast ultrasound images; since background images are included in the dataset, these remain identical to the originals. Generated images are produced by applying guiding masks to background images, with the final column demonstra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Erosion effect. From left to right: generate image, visualization of image and corresponding mask, and visualization after erosion mask. to our approach. This discrepancy may be due to the limited training data (30 pieces), which was insufficient for ControlNet and T2I-Adapter to achieve opti￾mal results. 3.3 Ablation experiments The ablation experiments focused on two aspects: the number of background images used f… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U-Net: Convolutional Net- works for Biomedical Image Segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: Convolutional Net- works for Biomedical Image Segmentation. InMICCAI, pages 234–241(2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

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

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon AA Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier- Hein. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods, 18(2):203–211(2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    An Introduction to Convolutional Neural Networks

    O’Shea Keiron, and Ryan Nash. An Introduction to Convolutional Neural Networks. arxiv:1511.08458(2015)

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

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

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. InICLR(2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Liu Ze, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InICCV, pp. 10012-10022(2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InCVPR, pp. 770-778(2016) 10 Jianhao, et al

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Mod- els.arXiv:2006.11239(2020)

    Ho Jonathan, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Mod- els.arXiv:2006.11239(2020)

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    SongJiaming,ChenlinMeng,andStefanoErmon.DenoisingDiffusionImplicitMod- els.arXiv:2010.02502(2022)

    arXiv 2022

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Mohamed Akrout, Bálint Gyepesi, Péter Holló, Adrienn Poór, Blága Kincső, Stephen Solis, Katrina Cirone, Jeremy Kawahara, Dekker Slade, Latif Abid, and others. Diffusion-based data augmentation for skin disease classification: Impact across original medical datasets to fully sy...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Rogier Van der Sluijs, Małgorzata Połacin, Juan Manuel Zambrano Chaves, Tanishq Mathew Abra- ham, and others.Roentgen: vision-language foundation model for chest x-ray gener- ation.arXiv:2211.12737(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models.In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 3836–3847(2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject- driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject- driven generation. ArXiv Preprint Arxiv:2208.12242(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv:2106.09685(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El- Nouby, and others. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv:2304.07193(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H. Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. An Image is Worth One Word: Personalizing Text- to-Image Generation using Textual Inversion.arXiv:2208.01618(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 10684–10695(2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Lina Pedraza, Carlos Vargas, Fabián Narváez, Oscar Durán, Emma Muñoz, and Eduardo Romero. 2015. An open access thyroid ultrasound image database.In 10th International Symposium on Medical Information Processing and Analysis, SPIE, 92870W(2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    BUSIS: a benchmark for breast ultrasound image segmentation.In Healthcare, MDPI, 729(2022)

    Yingtao Zhang, Min Xian, Heng-Da Cheng, Bryar Shareef, Jianrui Ding, Fei Xu, Kuan Huang, Boyu Zhang, Chunping Ning, and Ying Wang. BUSIS: a benchmark for breast ultrasound image segmentation.In Healthcare, MDPI, 729(2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    PH 2-A dermoscopic image database for research and benchmarking

    Teresa Mendonça, Pedro M Ferreira, Jorge S Marques, André RS Marcal, and Jorge Rozeira. PH 2-A dermoscopic image database for research and benchmarking. In 201335th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), IEEE, 5437–5440(2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Noel CF Codella, David Gutman, M Emre Celebi, Brian Helba, Michael A Marchetti, Stephen W Dusza, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Nabin Mishra, Harald Kittler, and others. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A chal- lenge at the 2017 international symposium on b...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic)

    Noel Codella, Veronica Rotemberg, Philipp Tschandl, M Emre Celebi, Stephen Dusza, David Gutman, Brian Helba, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Michael Marchetti, and others. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin ima...

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Unified per- ceptual parsing for scene understanding

    Tete Xiao, Yingcheng Liu, Bolei Zhou, Yuning Jiang, and Jian Sun. Unified per- ceptual parsing for scene understanding. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 418–434(2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image seg- mentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image seg- mentation. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 801–818(2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Yanze Wu, Jian Zhang, Zhongang Qi, and Ying Shan. T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4296–4304(2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    From Majority to Minority: A Diffusion-Based Augmentation for Underrepresented Groups in Skin Lesion Analysis.arxiv:2406.18375(2024)

    Wang Janet, Yunsung Chung, Zhengming Ding, and Jihun Hamm. From Majority to Minority: A Diffusion-Based Augmentation for Underrepresented Groups in Skin Lesion Analysis.arxiv:2406.18375(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Non-IID Medical Image Segmentation Based on Cascaded Diffusion Model for Diverse Multi- Center Scenarios

    Hanwen Zhang, Mingzhi Chen, Yuxi Liu, Guibo Luo, Yuesheng Zhu, "Non-IID Medical Image Segmentation Based on Cascaded Diffusion Model for Diverse Multi- Center Scenarios", IEEEJournal of Biomedical and Health Informatics(2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Data Augmentation in Class-Conditional Diffusion Model for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmenta- tion

    Jiaying Zhang, Guibo Luo, Ziang Zhang, Yuesheng Zhu, “Data Augmentation in Class-Conditional Diffusion Model for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmenta- tion”,IJCNN(2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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