Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 29 references

DpDNet: An Dual-Prompt-Driven Network for Universal PET-CT Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 DpDNet splits cancer-specific and shared prompts to lift PET-CT segmentation across four cancer types.

desk verdict Clean architecture and honest ablation, but the main benchmark is confounded by data source and the statistics are too thin to support the headline claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07126 v1 pith:AJJW66S4 submitted 2025-07-08 eess.IV cs.AI

Xinglong Liang , Jiaju Huang , Luyi Han , Tianyu Zhang , Xin Wang , Yuan Gao , Chunyao Lu , Lishan Cai
show 2 more authors
Tao Tan Ritse Mann
This is my paper
classification eess.IVcs.AI
keywords PET-CTsegmentationuniversaldualpromptscancer-specificprompt-awareheadssurvivalanalysismetabolictumorvolume
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

PET-CT lesion segmentation usually treats all cancers as one task, but different cancers spread and light up differently. DpDNet instead learns a separate prompt for each cancer plus a shared common prompt, feeding both into the decoder early, with prompt-aware heads that adapt the final prediction per cancer. On a four-cancer whole-body dataset, the paper reports the best average Dice of 74.87% and IoU of 62.56%, beating the second-best method by 1.32 and 1.56 points. It then shows the segmentations can drive breast-cancer survival stratification, with metabolic tumor volume giving a hazard ratio of 2.88. The claim is that explicitly decoupling shared and cancer-specific knowledge improves universal segmentation and downstream prognosis.

What carries the argument

The engine is the dual-prompt block plus prompt-aware heads. A universal prompt $F_{\text{uni}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times D/16\times H/32\times W/32}$ is split along the channel dimension into cancer-specific prompts $\{F_{\text{can}}^1,\ldots,F_{\text{can}}^N\}$; the target prompt is selected according to the current task, while the remaining prompts are gated-fused into a common prompt $F_{\text{com}}^i$ that encodes shared metastatic behavior. These are concatenated with the bottleneck features and fed into the shared decoder, so task awareness arrives early. Prompt-aware heads then replace one shared head with per-cancer heads that add channel attention and multi-scale branches, preventing the early prompts from being forgotten and improving small-target extraction. The T-SNE visualizations show the common prompt sitting centrally among separated cancer-specific prompts, supporting the claim that the two prompt families capture different information.

What would settle it

Retrain DpDNet with the cancer-type prompts randomly shuffled across datasets, or evaluate it on breast-cancer scans from a public multicenter cohort; if the reported 1.32-point DSC advantage vanishes or fails to transfer, the claimed benefit is attributable to site separation rather than cancer-specific knowledge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a dual-prompt design can outperform both single-task and flat multi-task PET-CT segmentation. DpDNet computes cancer-specific prompts from the bottleneck features plus a common prompt formed by gated fusion of the other cancers' prompts, then concatenates both with the bottleneck as decoder input. After the decoder, a prompt-aware head selected by cancer type uses channel attention and 1x1x1, 3x3x3, and 5x5x5 convolution branches to capture small lesions. Across lung cancer, lymphoma, melanoma, and breast cancer, the model reaches average DSC 74.87% and IoU 62.56%, with the best scores in lung, lymphoma, and breast cancer; in survival analysis on 1,210 breast-cancer patients, segmentation-derived MTV stratifies overall survival with HR 2.88. The authors conclude that separating shared from cancer-specific features is the mechanism that produces both better masks and more clinically usable biomarkers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the learnable cancer-specific prompts capture biological differences between cancers rather than differences in where the scans came from, since three cancer types come from one public dataset and breast cancer comes from a private collection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the architecture is prompt-based, adding a new cancer type requires a new learnable prompt and head rather than retraining the whole network from scratch.
  • Decoupling cancer-specific and shared prompts should help when each cancer has few annotated cases, since the common prompt can transfer knowledge across tasks.
  • Prompt-aware heads allow task adaptation with only about 15 million parameters and roughly 139 GFLOPs, so the approach remains practical for whole-body volumes.
  • Segmentation quality directly affects downstream clinical quantities: the better segmentor yields higher C-indices for MTV, TLG, and SUVmax than DoDNet and CLIP-driven baselines.
  • The reported hazard ratios imply that accurate automated PET-CT segmentation could be used for noninvasive risk stratification in breast cancer without manual lesion delineation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The central comparison is confounded: lung, lymphoma, and melanoma scans come from a public dataset while breast scans come from a private collection, so the task identity is entangled with scanner and protocol differences; a cleaner test would use each cancer from multiple sites.
  • The survival analysis derives median thresholds from 480 patients and applies them to 780 others, and no external validation cohort is reported, so the HR of 2.88 for MTV should be read as an exploratory result until replicated.
  • The dual-prompt idea is modality-agnostic and could be tested on CT or MRI organ segmentation or on other multi-cancer imaging tasks where shared and specific anatomical patterns matter.
  • One testable extension is to condition prompts on patient-level variables such as stage, subtype, or lesion site instead of only cancer type, which could improve stratification further.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DpDNet, a dual-prompt-driven network for universal whole-body PET-CT lesion segmentation across four cancer types. The architecture uses learnable cancer-specific prompts and a common prompt derived by gated fusion of the remaining cancer prompts, both injected into a shared STU-Net-S decoder, followed by prompt-aware heads with channel attention and multi-scale branches. Experiments combine AutoPET lung/lymphoma/melanoma cases with a private breast cancer collection (697 cases, 557/140 train/validation) and report average DSC 74.87% and IoU 62.56%, exceeding a second-best prompt-based model by 1.32% DSC and 1.56% IoU. The authors also compute SUVmax, MTV, and TLG from predicted breast cancer segmentations and use median-derived thresholds to stratify 780 patients, reporting MTV as the strongest prognostic marker (HR=2.88). The code is publicly available.

Significance. If the reported improvements are statistically robust and the cancer-specific prompts generalize beyond acquisition-site identity, the paper would make a genuinely useful contribution: it offers a parameter-efficient universal segmentation architecture that explicitly separates shared and cancer-specific features, with an ablation study isolating each component, and it goes beyond segmentation accuracy by linking predicted volumes to survival stratification. The main segmentation evaluation is on a held-out validation split, so the central claim is not circular. The empirical evidence for the segmentation claim is encouraging but currently under-supported; the manuscript would be strengthened substantially by error bars, repeated-seed variability, per-cancer sample sizes, a source-confounding check, and a statistically defensible survival comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1, Fig. 2] The central interpretation of the cancer-specific prompts is threatened by a confound between cancer type and data source: lung cancer, lymphoma, and melanoma are taken from AutoPET, while breast cancer is a private collection, and the model requires the cancer type as input at inference time. Consequently, the specific prompts, and the T-SNE separation in Fig. 2, could encode scanner, protocol, or annotation-style differences rather than cancer biology. To support the claim that the prompts capture cancer-specific metastatic patterns, the authors should provide a control experiment that disentangles source from cancer type — for example, adding acquisition site as an additional prompt or label, training on subsets matched by acquisition protocol, or validating on an external multi-site dataset where the same cancer type comes from different scanners and different cancer types share a scanner. Without such a test, the mechanism attributed to cancer specificity remains an identification assumption.
  2. [Table 1, Section 3.3] The headline performance claim is not statistically supported as reported. The caption states that 'all comparison results yielded p <0.05' but gives no test procedure, variance estimates, confidence intervals, or number of repeated runs, and the average gain over the second-best method is only 1.32% DSC. Given the well-known run-to-run variability of 3D medical segmentation training, the authors should report mean ± standard deviation over at least three random seeds for each method, specify the paired statistical test and adjustment for multiple comparisons, and give per-cancer validation sample sizes. This is essential before readers can assess whether the reported ranking is trustworthy.
  3. [Table 3, Section 3.3] The survival analysis does not establish that better segmentation leads to better survival prediction. The C-indices for MTV are 69.33 [62.05, 75.83] for DpDNet, 68.83 [61.62, 75.69] for CLIP-driven, and 68.51 [61.79, 75.30] for DoDNet, so the 95% confidence intervals overlap almost completely; the same holds for TLG and SUVmax. Moreover, the median thresholds are computed on 480 patients and applied to a disjoint 780-patient set, but no details are given for how the C-index and hazard ratio are computed (censoring, covariates, whether thresholds are re-estimated, or whether the 780 patients are used for the C-index). The authors should report a formal comparison of the survival models (e.g., difference in C-index with confidence intervals, or a test of equivalence) and validate the threshold derivation, for example by internal cross-validation, before claiming clinical utility.
  4. [Section 3.1] The composition of the training and validation sets is under-specified. The text reports 697 total cases with 557 training and 140 validation cases, but it does not state the number of cases per cancer type, whether the split is at the patient level (e.g., multiple scans per patient), or the acquisition protocols and annotation guidelines for the private breast cancer collection. This information is necessary to interpret the averaged metrics, to assess class balance, and to reproduce the experiments. It also bears directly on the source-confounding concern raised above.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Title] The phrase 'An Dual-Prompt-Driven Network' should read 'A Dual-Prompt-Driven Network'; similar grammatical issues appear elsewhere in the main text.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence introducing evaluation metrics says 'four metrics' but then lists only DSC and IoU; the C-index and HR are described in the next sentence, so the wording should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  3. [Equation (3)] The notation `Fcat(...)` is undefined; if it denotes concatenation, it should be written `cat(...)` consistently with Eq. (2).
  4. [Table 1 caption] The caption says 'Weighted Averages' but the weighting scheme is not described anywhere; either define the weights or remove the term.
  5. [Table 2 and Section 3.3] The table labels the first row 'Baseline' but does not specify what the baseline includes; the text should state explicitly that it is STU-Net-S without any prompt module.
  6. [Fig. 2] The T-SNE visualization is split into four separate plots, making it difficult to compare the prompt geometries across cancer types; a single joint plot or a fixed embedding space would be more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the segmentation and survival claims are evaluated on held-out data, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that DpDNet improves PET-CT lesion segmentation across four cancer types. The model is trained on labeled image-mask pairs (557 cases) and evaluated on a separate validation split (140 cases, Section 3.1), with DSC/IoU reported per cancer type and as weighted averages in Table 1. The cancer-specific and common prompts are learned parameters conditioned on the known cancer type (Eqs. 1-3); the task label is an input to the model, not a quantity derived from the evaluation metric. The ablation study (Table 2) measures held-out performance as components are added, so it does not reduce to a fitted parameter. The survival analysis computes median cutoffs for MTV, TLG, and SUVmax from 480 patients and applies them to a disjoint set of 780 patients, which is a standard cutoff-derivation/application split rather than circular fitting. The statement that better segmentation accuracy improves survival prediction is based on Table 3, where confidence intervals overlap, making the claim statistically weak, but this is an evidentiary issue, not circularity. Several references include authors of the present paper (e.g., [5], [26], [28]), but they support background statements about prior work and are not used to justify DpDNet's design or to forbid alternative approaches. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the reported experiments.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Model weights aside, the significant data-fitted constants are the three survival median thresholds. The central architectural ideas (specific and common prompts) are internal learned entities whose claimed function is supported only by internal visualization. The strongest shared-domain assumptions are the reliability of the combined annotations and the separability of cancer identity from data source.

free parameters (1)
  • Median thresholds for SUVmax, MTV, TLG = not reported numerically; computed from 480 breast cancer patients
    Section 3.1: medians from 480 patients are used to stratify the remaining 780 patients into high- and low-risk groups; these cutoffs are fitted to the survival cohort data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption AutoPET and the private breast dataset provide accurate, consistent ground-truth lesion annotations.
    The model is trained and evaluated against these annotations (Section 3.1); no inter-observer variability or quality control is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Cancer type can be learned from limited data and is not confounded with acquisition site.
    Lung, lymphoma, and melanoma are from AutoPET while breast is private, so cancer identity is entangled with data source (Section 3.1); the claimed specificity of cancer prompts assumes this confounding is absent.
  • domain assumption Cox proportional hazards assumptions hold for the breast cancer survival cohort.
    A Cox model is applied to stratified high- and low-risk groups (Section 3.3); proportional hazards and independent censoring are not verified.
invented entities (2)
  • Cancer-specific prompts (Fcan_i)
    purpose: Inject cancer-type-specific information into the shared decoder for lung, lymphoma, melanoma, and breast cancer tasks.
    Learned representations split from a universal prompt; internal T-SNE visualization (Fig. 2) is the only evidence of their specificity, with no external or ablative proof that they encode biology rather than dataset artifacts.
  • Common prompt (Fcom_i)
    purpose: Retain shared knowledge across cancer types through gated fusion of the other cancer-specific prompts.
    Same internal evidence basis as the specific prompts; no independent falsifiable prediction is made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DpDNet: An Dual-Prompt-Driven Network for Universal PET-CT Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJJW66S4

@misc{pith2026250707126,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DpDNet: An Dual-Prompt-Driven Network for Universal PET-CT Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJJW66S4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07126}
}
read the original abstract

PET-CT lesion segmentation is challenging due to noise sensitivity, small and variable lesion morphology, and interference from physiological high-metabolic signals. Current mainstream approaches follow the practice of one network solving the segmentation of multiple cancer lesions by treating all cancers as a single task. However, this overlooks the unique characteristics of different cancer types. Considering the specificity and similarity of different cancers in terms of metastatic patterns, organ preferences, and FDG uptake intensity, we propose DpDNet, a Dual-Prompt-Driven network that incorporates specific prompts to capture cancer-specific features and common prompts to retain shared knowledge. Additionally, to mitigate information forgetting caused by the early introduction of prompts, prompt-aware heads are employed after the decoder to adaptively handle multiple segmentation tasks. Experiments on a PET-CT dataset with four cancer types show that DpDNet outperforms state-of-the-art models. Finally, based on the segmentation results, we calculated MTV, TLG, and SUVmax for breast cancer survival analysis. The results suggest that DpDNet has the potential to serve as a valuable tool for personalized risk stratification, supporting clinicians in optimizing treatment strategies and improving outcomes. Code is available at https://github.com/XinglongLiang08/DpDNet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07126 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed DpDNet architecture for universal whole-body PET￾CT segmentation. Cancer-specific information is captured using N (the number of can￾cer types) learnable prompts, which are processed via the FUSE Module to generate specific prompts. Simultaneously, common prompt is formed by N Gated Fusion Mod￾ules using fixed-order inputs from other cancer types. Both prompts are integrated into the shared … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. T-SNE visualization of learnable cancer-specific and common prompts for (A) Lung Cancer, (B) Lymphoma, (C) Melanoma, and (D) Breast Cancer. The common prompt for each cancer type is derived from the fusion of cancer-specific prompts from other cancers, leading to distinct representations. To illustrate these differences, we present four separate visualizations. Survival analysis Biomarkers derived from radiological … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves stratified by MTV, TLG, and SUVmax, showing the survival differences between high-risk and low-risk groups [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cancers14(3), 637 (2022)

    Bouron, C., Mathie, C., Seegers, V., Morel, O., Jézéquel, P., Lasla, H., Guiller- minet, C., Girault, S., Lacombe, M., Sher, A., et al.: Prognostic value of metabolic, volumetric and textural parameters of baseline [18f] fdg pet/ct in early triple- negative breast cancer. Cancers14(3), 637 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Oncotarget 6(1), 570 (2014)

    Budczies, J., von Winterfeld, M., Klauschen, F., Bockmayr, M., Lennerz, J.K., Denkert, C., Wolf, T., Warth, A., Dietel, M., Anagnostopoulos, I., et al.: The land- scape of metastatic progression patterns across major human cancers. Oncotarget 6(1), 570 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Pattern Recognition145, 109881 (2024)

    Chen, J., Chen, C., Huang, W., Zhang, J., Debattista, K., Han, J.: Dynamic con- trastive learning guided by class confidence and confusion degree for medical image segmentation. Pattern Recognition145, 109881 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    International journal of clinical oncology11, 286–296 (2006)

    Endo, K., Oriuchi, N., Higuchi, T., Iida, Y., Hanaoka, H., Miyakubo, M., Ishikita, T., Koyama, K.: Pet and pet/ct using 18 f-fdg in the diagnosis and management of cancer patients. International journal of clinical oncology11, 286–296 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Nature Communications15(1), 9613 (2024)

    Gao, Y., Ventura-Diaz, S., Wang, X., He, M., Xu, Z., Weir, A., Zhou, H.Y., Zhang, T., van Duijnhoven, F.H., Han, L., et al.: An explainable longitudinal multi-modal fusion model for predicting neoadjuvant therapy response in women with breast cancer. Nature Communications15(1), 9613 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Data9(1), 601 (2022)

    Gatidis,S.,etal.:Awhole-bodyfdg-pet/ctdatasetwithmanuallyannotatedtumor lesions sci. Data9(1), 601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Radiology266(2), 388–405 (2013)

    Groheux, D., Espié, M., Giacchetti, S., Hindié, E.: Performance of fdg pet/ct in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology266(2), 388–405 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    The Lancet Digital Health6(2), e114–e125 (2024) 10 X

    Häggström, I., Leithner, D., Alvén, J., Campanella, G., Abusamra, M., Zhang, H., Chhabra, S., Beer, L., Haug, A., Salles, G., et al.: Deep learning for [18f] fluorodeoxyglucose-pet-ct classification in patients with lymphoma: a dual-centre retrospective analysis. The Lancet Digital Health6(2), e114–e125 (2024) 10 X. Liang et al

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    In: International MICCAI brainlesion workshop

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

    2021

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vi- sion

    Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., Yang, D., Myronenko, A., Landman, B., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vi- sion. pp. 574–584 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06716 (2023)

    Huang, Z., Wang, H., Deng, Z., Ye, J., Su, Y., Sun, H., He, J., Gu, Y., Gu, L., Zhang, S., et al.: Stu-net: Scalable and transferable medical image segmen- tation models empowered by large-scale supervised pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06716 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Nature methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Journal of clinical oncology28(20), 3271–3277 (2010)

    Kennecke, H., Yerushalmi, R., Woods, R., Cheang, M.C.U., Voduc, D., Speers, C.H., Nielsen, T.O., Gelmon, K.: Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. Journal of clinical oncology28(20), 3271–3277 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15076 (2022)

    Lee, H.H., Bao, S., Huo, Y., Landman, B.A.: 3d ux-net: A large kernel volumet- ric convnet modernizing hierarchical transformer for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15076 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Medicine 100(31), e26745 (August 2021)

    Lee, M.I., Jung, Y.J., Kim, D.I., Lee, S., Jung, C.S., Kang, S.K., Pak, K., Kim, S.J., Kim, H.Y.: Prognostic value of suvmax in breast cancer and comparative analyses of molecular subtypes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 100(31), e26745 (August 2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

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

    Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Chen, J.N., Xiao, J., Lu, Y., A Landman, B., Yuan, Y., Yuille, A., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z.: Clip-driven universal model for organ segmentation and tumor detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 21152–21164 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04722 (2024)

    Ma, J., Li, F., Wang, B.: U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomed- ical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04722 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cancers 15(10), 2715 (2023)

    Quartuccio, N., Alongi, P., Urso, L., Ortolan, N., Borgia, F., Bartolomei, M., Arnone, G., Evangelista, L.: 18f-fdg pet-derived volume-based parameters to pre- dict disease-free survival in patients with grade iii breast cancer of different molec- ular subtypes candidates to n...

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Tang, Y., Yang, D., Li, W., Roth, H.R., Landman, B., Xu, D., Nath, V., Hatamizadeh, A.: Self-supervised pre-training of swin transformers for 3d med- ical image analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 20730–20740 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Cancer treatment reviews40(4), 558–566 (2014)

    Wood, S.L., Pernemalm, M., Crosbie, P.A., Whetton, A.D.: The role of the tumor- microenvironment in lung cancer-metastasis and its relationship to potential ther- apeutic targets. Cancer treatment reviews40(4), 558–566 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2023)

    Xie, Y., Zhang, J., Xia, Y., Shen, C.: Learning from partially labeled data for multi-organ and tumor segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05905 (2024)

    Ye, Y., Chen, Z., Zhang, J., Xie, Y., Xia, Y.: Meduniseg: 2d and 3d med- ical image segmentation via a prompt-driven universal model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05905 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: International Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11 Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Ye, Y., Xie, Y., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Xia, Y.: Uniseg: A prompt-driven universal segmentation model as well as a strong representation learner. In: International Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11 Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventio...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Breast Cancer Re- search and Treatment153, 607–616 (2015)

    Yue, Y., Cui, X., Bose, S., Audeh, W., Zhang, X., Fraass, B.: Stratifying triple- negative breast cancer prognosis using 18f-fdg-pet/ct imaging. Breast Cancer Re- search and Treatment153, 607–616 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhang, J., Xie, Y., Xia, Y., Shen, C.: Dodnet: Learning to segment multi-organ and tumors from multiple partially labeled datasets. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1195–1204 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Artificial Intelligence Review56(Suppl 1), 857–892 (2023)

    Zhang,T.,Tan,T.,Samperna,R.,Li,Z.,Gao,Y.,Wang,X.,Han,L.,Yu,Q.,Beets- Tan, R.G., Mann, R.M.: Radiomics and artificial intelligence in breast imaging: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review56(Suppl 1), 857–892 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention

    Zhang, Y., Li, X., Chen, H., Yuille, A.L., Liu, Y., Zhou, Z.: Continual learning for abdominal multi-organ and tumor segmentation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 35–45. Springer (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    Zhang, Z., Han, L., Zhang, T., Lin, Z., Gao, Q., Tong, T., Sun, Y., Tan, T.: Unimrisegnet: Universal 3d network for various organs and cancers segmentation on multi-sequence mri. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    International Journal of Computer Vision130(9), 2337–2348 (2022)

    Zhou, K., Yang, J., Loy, C.C., Liu, Z.: Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision130(9), 2337–2348 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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