Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 35 references

MLRU++: Multiscale Lightweight Residual UNETR++ with Attention for Efficient 3D Medical Image Segmentation

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 MLRU++ claims to beat current state-of-the-art 3D medical image segmentation models on four benchmarks while using fewer parameters.

desk verdict A sensible but unverified incremental architecture whose own tables contradict the SOTA-accuracy and reduced-parameter claims—needs major revision before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16122 v3 pith:EXVKABVL submitted 2025-07-22 eess.IV cs.CV

Nand Kumar Yadav , Rodrigue Rizk , William CW Chen , KC Santosh (AI Research Lab , Department of Computer Science , Biomedical , Translational Sciences , Sanford School of Medicine
show 4 more authors
University Of South Dakota Vermillion SD USA)
This is my paper
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords 3DmedicalimagesegmentationlightweightattentiondepthwiseseparableconvolutionmultiscalefeatureaggregationUNETR++Dicescorechannel-spatialresidualencoder-decoder
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 proposes MLRU++, a 3D medical image segmentation network built on a UNETR++-style encoder-decoder but made lighter and more accurate. The two novel pieces are LCBAM, a channel-and-spatial attention module that replaces CBAM's MLP and full convolutions with 1x1 and depthwise convolutions, and M2B, a MobileNetV2-inspired decoder block with parallel depthwise convolutions at multiple kernel sizes plus a channel shuffle. On four public benchmarks (Synapse, BTCV, ACDC, Decathlon Lung), the authors report the highest average Dice among the compared models, with gains over UNETR++ of 5.38 points on Synapse and 2.12 points on ACDC, while keeping parameter count and FLOPs low. The claim is that this hybrid design gives both better accuracy and better efficiency than current state-of-the-art 3D segmentation models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are LCBAM and M2B. LCBAM computes channel attention as two 1x1 convolutions after adaptive average pooling, and spatial attention as a 7x7 depthwise convolution on pooled features, giving roughly half the channel-attention parameters of CBAM and about 90% fewer spatial-attention FLOPs. M2B applies parallel depthwise convolutions with kernel sizes 3, 5, and 7, sums them with a residual connection, and shuffles channels before a pointwise projection, adding only O(C) parameters. These modules sit inside a residual UNETR++ encoder-decoder with deep supervision, and they carry the argument that multiscale context can be added without quadratic attention cost.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison by training UNETR++, nnFormer, and nnUNet on the exact same data splits, patch sizes, augmentations, and loss used for MLRU++, then compare average Dice on Synapse, ACDC, and Lung; if the gaps drop below statistical significance, the state-of-the-art claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a lightweight residual UNETR++ architecture can beat larger hybrid CNN-Transformer models on four volumetric benchmarks. The authors state that MLRU++ reaches average Dice scores of 87.57% on Synapse, 85.20% on BTCV, 93.00% on ACDC, and 81.12% on the Decathlon Lung dataset, exceeding UNETR++, nnFormer, and nnUNet on most organs while using a comparable or smaller parameter budget. Ablations attribute the gain to the combination of LCBAM and M2B: adding the multiscale block raises Synapse Dice from 86.66% to 87.85% in the ablation table, and the full model outperforms its LCBAM-only variant on ACDC as well.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that the baseline scores taken from earlier papers were measured under conditions equivalent to MLRU++'s training setup, since the baselines were not re-run in this study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MLRU++ can be trained on a single 32 GB V100 GPU for 3D segmentation, pointing to feasible use in clinical settings with limited compute.
  • The per-organ gains on Synapse are concentrated in small structures such as the gallbladder and pancreas, suggesting the multiscale block helps where boundary detail matters.
  • The parameter and FLOPs reductions of LCBAM relative to CBAM imply that attention can be added to volumetric models without quadratic cost, which could transfer to other 3D vision tasks.
  • Deep supervision with compound loss weights is part of the design, and the reported Dice improvements on two independent datasets indicate the supervision strategy generalizes across modalities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the baselines were not re-trained under the authors' protocol, the exact size of the claimed accuracy advantage is an open question; a shared-protocol benchmark would settle it.
  • The M2B design with 3, 5, and 7 depthwise kernels suggests the module's benefit should scale with the range of anatomical structure sizes in the target organ, so one testable extension is applying it to datasets with very large and very small structures together.
  • The same lightweight-attention recipe could be applied to other dense prediction tasks such as 3D detection or image restoration, where the FLOPs budget is similarly constrained.
  • Nothing in the paper measures inference latency or peak GPU memory on clinical hardware, so reporting wall-clock time and memory usage would make the efficiency claim more concrete.
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 MLRU++, a 3D medical image segmentation architecture built on a UNETR++-style encoder-decoder with two new components: LCBAM, a lightweight channel-and-spatial attention module, and M2B, a multiscale decoder block. Experiments are reported on Synapse, BTCV, ACDC, and Decathlon Lung, with claims of state-of-the-art Dice scores and reduced parameter count and computational cost. The authors also provide an ablation study and release source code.

Significance. If substantiated, a lightweight high-accuracy 3D segmentation architecture would be practically valuable, and the paper's attention to computational cost is commendable. The availability of source code and the inclusion of multi-dataset ablations are also positive. However, the manuscript currently contains multiple internal inconsistencies in the reported accuracy, parameter counts, and FLOPs, and the efficiency claim is contradicted by the paper's own tables. These issues prevent the reader from verifying either half of the central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Tables 1 and 5] The headline accuracy for the full MLRU++ model is not reproducible from the paper's own tables: Table 1 reports an average DSC of 87.57% for MLRU++, Table 5 reports 87.85% for the same configuration 'MLRU++ (LCBAM + M2B)', and the abstract uses 87.57%. Since the state-of-the-art claim rests on this number, the discrepancy must be resolved with a single consistent experimental result.
  2. [Abstract; Table 1; Table 5] The efficiency claim is contradicted by the reported complexity numbers. Table 1 lists MLRU++ at 46.09M parameters versus UNETR++ at 42.96M, and Table 5 reports 66.06G FLOPs for MLRU++ versus 47.98G for UNETR++. The abstract's statement that MLRU++ 'significantly reduc[es] parameter count and computational cost' is therefore not supported by the evidence presented. The claim of the 'lowest HD95 of 7.53' in §5.1 is also inaccurate because Table 1 shows UNETR++ with the same value.
  3. [§6.1; Table 5; Table 1] The ablation results are internally inconsistent. Table 5 lists 'MLRU++ (LCBAM Only Encoder + Decoder)' with 86.36% DSC and 44.60M parameters, while 'MLRU++ (LCBAM Only in Encoder)' has 86.66% and 44.92M. Table 1's 'MLRU++ (Encoder LCBAM only)' row reports 86.36% and 44.92M, matching neither Table 5 row in both values. The text in §6.1 states that the encoder-plus-decoder variant (without M2B) 'performs better (86.66%)', which corresponds to the encoder-only row in Table 5. These mismatches make it impossible to determine the contribution of each component.
  4. [§4.2; Tables 1-4] The comparison protocol is not established. The paper states that 'all training configurations follow the setup in [31]' but lists patch sizes of 64×128×128 for Synapse, 32×192×192 for Lung, and 16×160×160 for ACDC, which differ from the configuration in [31]; moreover, none of the baseline models are re-trained under the authors' protocol. Since data splits, preprocessing, and training details are not controlled, the reported differences against cited baseline numbers (e.g., the 5.38% and 2.12% improvements claimed in the abstract) cannot be verified as genuine gains.
  5. [Eq. (2); §3.3; Appendix A.3; Appendix B.1] The kernel-size specifications are inconsistent across the paper. Equation (2) defines spatial attention with a depthwise 7×7 convolution, Appendix A.3 states that LCBAM uses 'either depthwise 3×3 or 1×1 convolutions,' and §3.3 defines the MSDC kernel set as K={3,5,7} while Appendix B.1 uses K={1,3,5}. The parameter and FLOPs estimates in the appendix depend on these kernel sizes, so the efficiency analysis must be tied to the actual implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The column header 'Aotra' should be 'Aorta'.
  2. [§5.4] The text contains the typo 'visualizations0' instead of 'visualizations'.
  3. [Abstract; Figure 1; §3.2] The name M2B is inconsistent: the abstract calls it 'Multiscale Bottleneck Block', Figure 1 calls it 'Multiscale Modulation Block', and §3.2 calls it 'MobileNet-Based Multiscale Block'. Please unify the terminology.
  4. [§6.1] The claim that 'MLRU++ not only improves accuracy but also maintains competitive model complexity' is hard to evaluate because FLOPs are only reported in Table 5, not in the main comparison tables.
  5. [§5.1] The statement that MLRU++ achieves the 'lowest HD95 of 7.53' is not accurate because UNETR++ also achieves 7.53 in Table 1; the text should describe this as a tie or provide a different boundary metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the architecture is evaluated empirically against external benchmarks, and no derivation reduces to a fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

MLRU++ is an empirical architecture paper. The central claim—higher Dice scores and lower parameter counts than existing models—rests on direct runs of the proposed model on four public benchmarks and on published baseline numbers taken from the literature. No step in the paper derives a predicted quantity from a fitted parameter: the LCBAM and M2B parameter and FLOP counts are algebraic module-level calculations, and the reported Dice scores are measured outcomes, not fitted values. The paper does not rely on prior work by the same authors to justify its architecture; the cited prior models such as UNETR++, nnFormer, CBAM, and MobileNetV2 are external sources, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or self-citation is invoked to force the design. The statement in Section 4.2 that 'For fair comparison, all training configurations follow the setup in [31]' is a protocol claim and not a circular reduction, even though the listed patch sizes differ from nnFormer. The internal inconsistency between Table 1 (87.57% for full MLRU++) and Table 5 (87.85% for the same configuration) and the parameter-count comparison showing MLRU++ (46.09M) larger than UNETR++ (42.96M) are serious evidence-quality problems for the state-of-the-art and efficiency claims, but they are reproducibility and consistency issues, not circular derivation. Under the required standard of quoting a specific equation or self-citation that reduces to the input, no circular step can be identified. The circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on a set of unstated or inconsistent hyperparameters (reduction ratio, kernel sets, patch sizes, loss weights) and on the assumption that baseline numbers from prior papers are comparable. The proposed LCBAM and M2B modules are architectural inventions without external evidence beyond the paper's own tables.

free parameters (5)
  • Reduction ratio r in LCBAM channel attention = not stated
    Controls the bottleneck width in Eq. (1); not reported, so replication depends on guessing this hyperparameter.
  • MSDC kernel set K = {3, 5, 7} in Eq. (4), {1, 3, 5} in Appendix B.1
    Chosen for multiscale depthwise branches; the inconsistency between main text and appendix makes the effective set ambiguous.
  • Auxiliary loss weights = [0.57, 0.29, 0.14]
    Used for deep supervision in Sec. 4.2; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • Dataset-specific patch sizes = Synapse 64x128x128, Lung 32x192x192, ACDC 16x160x160
    Listed in Sec. 4.2 with no justification; they affect training dynamics and results.
  • Depthwise kernel size for spatial attention = 7x7 in Eq. (2), 3x3 in Appendix A.3
    Inconsistent specification; the effective kernel is ambiguous.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The datasets and their official training/validation splits are as described.
    Section 4.1 lists Synapse (30 subjects), BTCV (30, 24/6), ACDC (100), Lung (63). If the splits differ from prior works, comparisons are invalid.
  • domain assumption The evaluation protocol (DSC, HD95) is computed identically for all models.
    Section 4.1 defines metrics; no code is provided to verify the exact implementation, especially for 3D volumes.
  • domain assumption Baseline results quoted from other papers are accurate and obtained under comparable settings.
    Tables 1-4 cite numbers from prior papers; the paper does not re-run baselines under its own protocol.
  • standard math The operations described (depthwise convolutions, transposed convolutions, deep supervision) are implemented as standard in PyTorch/MONAI.
    The paper uses standard deep learning building blocks; no proof of correctness is needed.
invented entities (2)
  • LCBAM (Lightweight Channel and Bottleneck Attention Module)
    purpose: Channel and spatial attention with low parameter cost
    Only evaluated on the paper's own benchmarks; no external validation or theoretical justification beyond the reported results.
  • M2B (MobileNet-Based Multiscale Block)
    purpose: Multiscale depthwise feature aggregation in the decoder
    Only evaluated on the paper's own benchmarks; no external validation or theoretical justification beyond the reported results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MLRU++: Multiscale Lightweight Residual UNETR++ with Attention for Efficient 3D Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXVKABVL

@misc{pith2026250716122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MLRU++: Multiscale Lightweight Residual UNETR++ with Attention for Efficient 3D Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXVKABVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16122}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate and efficient medical image segmentation is crucial but challenging due to anatomical variability and high computational demands on volumetric data. Recent hybrid CNN-Transformer architectures achieve state-of-the-art results but add significant complexity. In this paper, we propose MLRU++, a Multiscale Lightweight Residual UNETR++ architecture designed to balance segmentation accuracy and computational efficiency. It introduces two key innovations: a Lightweight Channel and Bottleneck Attention Module (LCBAM) that enhances contextual feature encoding with minimal overhead, and a Multiscale Bottleneck Block (M2B) in the decoder that captures fine-grained details via multi-resolution feature aggregation. Experiments on four publicly available benchmark datasets (Synapse, BTCV, ACDC, and Decathlon Lung) demonstrate that MLRU++ achieves state-of-the-art performance, with average Dice scores of 87.57% (Synapse), 93.00% (ACDC), and 81.12% (Lung). Compared to existing leading models, MLRU++ improves Dice scores by 5.38% and 2.12% on Synapse and ACDC, respectively, while significantly reducing parameter count and computational cost. Ablation studies evaluating LCBAM and M2B further confirm the effectiveness of the proposed architectural components. Results suggest that MLRU++ offers a practical and high-performing solution for 3D medical image segmentation tasks. Source code is available at: https://github.com/1027865/MLRUPP

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed MLRU++ architecture. The network consists of a four-stage encoder–decoder design. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Qualitative comparison of segmentation results on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison between baseline methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative segmentation results comparing MLRU++ with other methods on two datasets: Synapse (left) and ACDC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Yu, F., Koltun, V., Funkhouser, T.: Dilated residual networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 472--480 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  3. [2]

    In: International workshop on predictive intelligence in medicine

    Azad, R., Arimond, R., Aghdam, E.K., Kazerouni, A., Merhof, D.: Dae-former: Dual attention-guided efficient transformer for medical image segmentation. In: International workshop on predictive intelligence in medicine. pp. 83--95. Springer (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Bernard, O., Lalande, A., Zotti, C., Cervenansky, F., Yang, X., Heng, P.A., Cetin, I., Lekadir, K., Camara, O., Ballester, M.A.G., et al.: Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE transactions on medical imaging 37(11), 2514--2525 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05537 (2021)

    Cao, H., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Jiang, D., Zhang, X., Tian, Q., Wang, L.: Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05537 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 (2021)

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

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, October 17-21, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 19

    C i c ek, \"O ., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, October 17-21, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 19. pp. 424--432. Springer (2016)

    2016

  8. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Dai, J., Qi, H., Xiong, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, G., Hu, H., Wei, Y.: Deformable convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 764--773 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

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

    2020 arXiv

  2. [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

  3. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision

    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 vision. pp. 574--584 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 770--778 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Huang, D.X., Zhou, X.H., Gui, M.J., Xie, X.L., Liu, S.Q., Wang, S.Y., Feng, Z.Q., Hou, Z.G.: Mosformer: Momentum encoder-based inter-slice fusion transformer for medical image segmentation (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11856

    2025

  6. [13]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging 42(5), 1484--1494 (2022)

    Huang, X., Deng, Z., Li, D., Yuan, X., Fu, Y.: Missformer: An effective transformer for 2d medical image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 42(5), 1484--1494 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    In: Proc

    Igelsias, J., Styner, M., Langerak, T., Landman, B., Xu, Z., Klein, A.: Miccai multi-atlas labeling beyond the cranial vault--workshop and challenge. In: Proc. MICCAI Multi-Atlas Labeling Beyond Cranial Vault—Workshop Challenge (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    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

  9. [16]

    u r die Medizin 2019: Algorithmen--Systeme--Anwendungen. Proceedings des Workshops vom 17. bis 19. M \

    Isensee, F., Petersen, J., Klein, A., Zimmerer, D., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S., Wasserthal, J., Koehler, G., Norajitra, T., Wirkert, S., et al.: nnu-net: Self-adapting framework for u-net-based medical image segmentation. In: Bildverarbeitung f \"u r die Medizin 2019: Algorithmen-...

    2019

  10. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.13645 (2021)

    Karimi, D., Salcudean, S.E.: Convolution-free medical image segmentation using transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.13645 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    In: Proc

    Landman, B., Xu, Z., Igelsias, J., Styner, M., Langerak, T., Klein, A.: Miccai multi-atlas labeling beyond the cranial vault--workshop and challenge. In: Proc. MICCAI multi-atlas labeling beyond cranial vault—workshop challenge. vol. 5, p. 12. Munich, Germany (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    In: Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 565--571. IEEE (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Peng, C., Zhang, X., Yu, G., Luo, G., Sun, J.: Large kernel matters--improve semantic segmentation by global convolutional network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 4353--4361 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Rahman, M.M., Munir, M., Marculescu, R.: Emcad: Efficient multi-scale convolutional attention decoding for medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11769--11779 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI)

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI). pp. 234--241. Springer (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI)

    Roth, H.R., Farag, A., Lu, L., Turkbey, E.B., Summers, R.M.: Multi-scale deep convolutional neural networks for automated liver segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI). pp. 93--101. Springer (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05597 (2022)

    Roy, A.G., Siddiquee, M.M.R., P \"o lsterl, S., Navab, N., Wachinger, C.: Mednext: Transformers for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05597 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2018)

    Sandler, M., Howard, A., Zhu, M., Zhmoginov, A., Chen, L.C.: Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    Shaker, A.M., Maaz, M., Rasheed, H., Khan, S., Yang, M.H., Khan, F.S.: Unetr++: Delving into efficient and accurate 3d medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024). doi:10.1109/TMI.2024.3398728

    2024

  20. [27]

    arXiv e-prints pp

    Simpson, A.L., Antonelli, M., Bakas, S., Bilello, M., Farahani, K., van Ginneken, B., Kopp-Schneider, A., Landman, B.A., Litjens, G., Menze, B., et al.: A large annotated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms. arXiv e-prints pp. ar...

    2019

  21. [28]

    Medical Image Analysis 73, 102222 (2022)

    Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Wang, C., Fishman, E.K., Yuille, A.L.: Transfuse: Fusing transformers and cnns for medical image segmentation. Medical Image Analysis 73, 102222 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

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

    2018

  23. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03024 (2021)

    Xie, Y., Zhang, J., Shen, C.: Cotr: Efficiently bridging cnn and transformer for 3d medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03024 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    IEEE transactions on image processing 32, 4036--4045 (2023)

    Zhou, H.Y., Guo, J., Zhang, Y., Han, X., Yu, L., Wang, L., Yu, Y.: nnformer: volumetric medical image segmentation via a 3d transformer. IEEE transactions on image processing 32, 4036--4045 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03201 (2021)

    Zhou, Y., Wang, C., Chen, J., Lu, Y., Yu, Q., Fishman, E.K., Yuille, A.L.: nnformer: Interleaved transformer for volumetric segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03201 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    In: Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support

    Zhou, Z., Siddiquee, M.M.R., Tajbakhsh, N., Liang, J.: Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation. In: Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support. pp. 3--11. Springer (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module

    Sanghyun Woo, Jongchan Park, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. Cbam: Convolutional block attention module. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 3--19, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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