Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Cyst-X: A Multi-Center MRI Benchmark and Federated Learning Framework for Malignancy-Risk Stratification of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasm

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 With 1,461 MRI scans from 764 patients across seven centers, a 3D DenseNet-121 separates high-risk pancreatic cystic neoplasms at a mean AUC of 0.85 on T2-weighted MRI, and federated training preserves that discrimination without sharing…

desk verdict Valuable dataset, but the headline risk-stratification AUC mixes no-cyst controls into the negative class; the high-vs-low IPMN comparison is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22017 v4 pith:FDNUN5Q5 submitted 2025-07-29 eess.IV cs.CV

Hongyi Pan , Gorkem Durak , Elif Keles , Ziliang Hong , Deniz Seyithanoglu , Zheyuan Zhang , Alpay Medetalibeyoglu , Halil Ertugrul Aktas
show 22 more authors
Andrea Mia Bejar Yavuz Taktak Gulbiz Dagoglu Kartal Mehmet Sukru Erturk Timurhan Cebeci Yury Velichko Lili Zhao Emil Agarunov Federica Proietto Salanitri Concetto Spampinato Pallavi Tiwari Ziyue Xu Sachin Jambawalikar Ivo G. Schoots Marco J. Bruno Chenchan Huang Candice W. Bolan Tamas Gonda Frank H. Miller Rajesh N. Keswani Michael B. Wallace Ulas Bagci
This is my paper
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords IPMNpancreaticcysticneoplasmmalignancyriskstratificationMRIfederatedlearningdeeppancreassegmentationbenchmarkdataset
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

Pancreatic cystic neoplasms, especially IPMNs, present a clinical dilemma: most are indolent but some progress to cancer, and current guideline features both over-treat and under-detect. This paper claims that a large, multi-center MRI benchmark, 1,461 scans from 764 patients at seven centers, lets a 3D DenseNet-121 classifier separate high-risk from no/low-risk IPMNs with a mean AUC of 0.85 on T2-weighted MRI, raising average precision from a 0.23 prevalence baseline to 0.64. It further claims that federated training with FedProx preserves this discrimination within 0.7 AUC points without exchanging raw images, and that on a 629-case reader subset the classifier matches or exceeds the radiologist average sensitivity at comparable specificity. If these claims hold, imaging-based risk stratification could reduce both unnecessary surgeries and missed high-risk lesions, and federated training would let institutions collaborate without centralizing patient data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cyst-X benchmark itself: 1,461 MRI scans (723 T1-weighted, 738 T2-weighted) from 764 patients at seven centers, labeled high-risk, low-risk, or no-risk by histopathology or at least three years of imaging follow-up, with expert pancreas segmentation masks. The analytical mechanism is a pipeline that couples PanSegNet, an nnU-Net-based pancreas segmenter with linear self-attention, to a 3D DenseNet-121 classifier on the segmented pancreas region, with a parallel radiomics pipeline, 1,409 hand-crafted features with mRMR selection and a random forest, as a classical baseline. For distributed training, FedProx adds a proximal term to each client's loss to counter client drift, and the paper compares FedAvg and FedProx across seven institutional silos. The key comparison that carries the argument is the near-parity of centralized and federated classification AUC, 85.28% versus 84.58% on T2-weighted MRI, alongside a large federated segmentation penalty, which the paper reads as evidence that dense per-voxel prediction is more sensitive to inter-site heterogeneity than whole-region classification.

What would settle it

Track the presumed low-risk IPMN patients beyond three years, for example five to ten years of imaging or surgical pathology, and count how many previously stable lesions develop high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma; if a meaningful fraction progress, the high-risk versus no/low-risk discrimination reported here is biased. A complementary check is a temporally held-out test partition using all scans from 2022 onward, or a pseudo-prospective study where the locked classifier makes predictions before radiologist scores are collected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that IPMN malignancy-risk stratification from MRI is feasible at multi-center scale. A 3D DenseNet-121, trained on pancreas regions segmented by PanSegNet and evaluated on T2-weighted MRI, discriminates high-risk from no/low-risk IPMNs with mean AUC 85.28% (95% CI 84.48 to 86.08%), average precision 0.64 versus a 0.23 prevalence baseline, and sensitivity 56.83% at specificity 93.05% under a clinically calibrated threshold, while the three blinded radiologists scored 46.01% mean sensitivity at 93.91% mean specificity on the same 629-case imaging-only subset. Federated training with FedProx ($\mu=0.1$) reaches AUC 84.58% on T2-weighted MRI, 0.7 points below the centralized baseline, whereas federated pancreas segmentation with Swin-UNETR loses 7.10 to 7.83 Dice points. The paper identifies the segmentation-versus-classification asymmetry under federation as its key empirical finding, and it releases the dataset, masks, and models publicly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that lesions judged to be low-risk IPMNs without a tissue diagnosis, which stayed stable on imaging for at least three years, really are low-risk; if a meaningful share of those stable lesions would later turn out to be high-risk, the reported separation between high-risk and no/low-risk groups is optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A T2-weighted MRI-based classifier can be trained to flag high-risk IPMNs with sensitivity above the average blinded radiologist at comparable specificity, offering a decision-support tool for imaging-only assessment.
  • Federated training with FedProx allows multiple institutions to build an IPMN risk classifier without pooling raw images, with an AUC loss of about one point relative to centralized training on T2-weighted MRI.
  • The segmentation-versus-classification asymmetry implies that pancreas segmentation models should be trained centrally and distributed, while classification heads can be federated across sites.
  • Leave-one-center-out evaluation gives an external AUC of 81.43% on T2-weighted MRI, about four points below internal cross-validation, indicating that site heterogeneity is a real cost that fine-tuning or federation against new participants would need to address.
  • Public release of the dataset, segmentation masks, and trained models gives subsequent work fixed splits and baselines for MRI-based IPMN risk stratification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to re-label the no/low-risk group with longer follow-up, for example five to ten years, and check whether presumed-IPMN lesions that remained stable for three years later progress; if they do, the reported AUC is optimistic for true malignancy risk.
  • Because the paper combines imaging with neither cyst fluid genomics nor clinical variables, a natural next step is a multimodal risk profile, and the imaging-only framing suggests the classifier's contribution is complementary rather than a stand-alone surgical trigger.
  • The four-point internal-to-external AUC drop and center-level variance predict that deploying the locked classifier at a new site with a different scanner mix will require site-specific calibration or federated fine-tuning, and that small centers will dominate variance.
  • If FedProx's proximal term regularizes a noisy optimization landscape, then the T1-weighted federated AUC exceeding the centralized baseline, 81.20% versus 78.60%, is likely a regularization artifact rather than a signal that federation improves discrimination; a direct test would compare FedProx against centralized training with an equivalent proximal penalty.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. Cyst-X assembles a multi-center MRI cohort of 1,461 abdominal scans from 764 patients at seven institutions, with expert pancreas segmentations and three-tier IPMN risk labels anchored in histopathology or three-year imaging follow-up. The paper benchmarks a PanSegNet-based segmentation pipeline and a 3D DenseNet-121 classifier, reports internal cross-validated T2-weighted AUC of 85.28%, a leave-one-center-out external AUC of 81.43%, and FedProx internal AUC of 84.58%, and compares the classifier against three blinded radiologists on a 629-case subset. The authors frame the work as a public benchmark, a federated-learning capability demonstration, and a step toward MRI-based IPMN malignancy-risk stratification. The dataset release and large-scale multi-center scope are genuine strengths, but several load-bearing empirical claims depend on the composition of the negative class, the threshold calibration for the reader comparison, and the choice of internal rather than external evaluation for the federated claim.

Significance. If the central claims hold, Cyst-X would be a substantial community resource: it is the largest public multi-center MRI dataset for IPMN risk stratification, with per-center external evaluation, MRQy-based heterogeneity analysis, and a reproducible benchmark including radiomics, multiple 3D CNN baselines, and federated training. The segmentation results (PanSegNet Dice 89.62% on T2W) and the reported internal-to-external AUC drop are honestly quantified, and the observation that federation hurts dense segmentation more than whole-region classification is an interesting empirical finding. However, the headline 'malignancy-risk stratification' claim is not yet supported by the reported experiments, because the binary task is high-risk versus a negative class that includes roughly one-third patients without any pancreatic cyst, and the clinically relevant high-risk-versus-low-risk IPMN discrimination is never isolated. The radiologist comparison also depends on per-center thresholds tuned on the training partition, which makes the 'matched conditions' claim fragile.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Table A1] The headline binary task is high-risk versus no/low-risk, but the negative class pools 344 low-risk IPMNs with 159 T2W 'No Risk/Control' patients who have no pancreatic cyst, roughly 31.6% of the 503 negatives in Table A1. A classifier can therefore achieve a high AUC by detecting the presence of a cyst rather than by grading malignant potential. The paper never reports the clinically relevant high-risk versus low-risk IPMN-only discrimination, so the 'malignancy-risk stratification' claim is not directly supported by the reported experiments. Please add a subgroup analysis restricted to patients with a known IPMN (low-risk versus high-risk), ideally per center and under the same four-fold protocol, and report whether the T2W AUC of 0.85 is preserved in that subgroup. If the dataset cannot support such an analysis, the title and abstract should be reworded to describe the task as high-risk versus no/low-risk discrimination without claiming IPMN malignancy-risk stratification as the demonstrated endpoint.
  2. [§A.6, Table 3] The radiologist comparison is not matched in the sense claimed. The classifier's 'clinically optimized' sensitivity/specificity in Table 3 are obtained from per-center thresholds selected in Section A.6 by maximizing accuracy subject to sensitivity>35% and specificity>85% on the training partition, whereas the three radiologists operate at naturally chosen, reader-specific operating points. At the standard 50% probability threshold, the T2W DenseNet-121 has sensitivity 38.85% at specificity 96.84%, which is below the mean reader sensitivity of 46.01% at specificity 93.91%. The statement that the classifier 'matched or exceeded sensitivity at comparable specificity' therefore depends on an operating point tuned per center for accuracy, not matched to reader specificity. Please report a fixed global threshold or, preferably, compute sensitivity at each reader's specificity (or specificity at each reader's sensitivity) with confidence intervals for the sensitivity difference, and clearly state that the optimized-threshold numbers are not a head-to-head matched comparison.
  3. [§2.3, §2.4, Table A10] The abstract and Section 2.3 state that FedProx preserves the T2W discrimination of the centralized model within 0.7 AUC points, but this result comes from the internal four-fold cross-validation only. Under the leave-one-center-out external protocol in Table A10, the global T2W AUC for centralized DenseNet-121 is 81.43%, but it drops to 74.71% for FedAvg and 69.70% for FedProx(mu=0.1), an 11.7-point gap relative to the centralized external model. The paper's claim that federation 'preserves discrimination' is therefore not supported by the external evaluation, and the large external federated degradation is not discussed in Sections 2.3 or 2.4. Please report and discuss the external federated results, qualify the abstract's federation claim to internal cross-validation, or modify the federation protocol so that the external claim is actually tested.
  4. [§4.1] The low-risk label includes presumed-IPMN lesions without histology that remained stable on at least three years of imaging follow-up (growth under 2.5 mm and no worrisome features). This assumption is load-bearing because the negative class in the binary analysis is dominated by low-risk cases (344 of 503 on T2W, Table A1). A meaningful fraction of such 'stable' lesions could later progress, which would bias the high-risk versus no/low-risk AUC and the radiologist comparison. Please add a sensitivity analysis using only histologically confirmed low-risk IPMNs (versus pathologically confirmed high-risk) to quantify the effect of follow-up-based labels, and report the fraction of low-risk labels assigned by follow-up stability versus histology within the binary cohort.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, Table 3] The Discussion states that the model has 'higher sensitivity for detecting malignant IPMNs (87.8% vs. 64.1%) while preserving specificity,' but 87.8% does not appear in Table 3 for any reported operating point (the T2W DenseNet values are 56.83% and 38.85% at the two thresholds). Please either cite the exact threshold and table that yields 87.8% or correct the sentence.
  2. [§4.4, Table A1] The text says 'center AHN contains only a single case,' but Table A1 lists 16 to 18 cases for AHN depending on modality. The intended statement appears to be that AHN contains only a single no-risk case; please correct the wording.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The Calinski-Harabasz index is cited to reference [32], which is the Davies-Bouldin paper; please use the original Calinski-Harabasz reference.
  4. [§4.4, Reference [50]] There are minor typographical errors, including 'mdoels' in Section 4.4 and 'Proceeedings' in reference [50]; a light proofreading pass would improve the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the benchmark claims rest on measured internal/external AUC and reader comparisons, not on fitted or self-referential quantities.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical benchmark and does not contain a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. PanSegNet is cited from the authors' prior work [17], but the load-bearing classification result is not imported from that citation: Table 2 reports DenseNet-121 AUC 85.28% on T2W MRI using radiologist-defined ROIs, while the PanSegNet-masked variant is reported separately at 80.32% and Swin-UNETR at 75.71%, so the segmenter comparison is measured on the Cyst-X cohort rather than assumed from the citation. The FedProx and FedAvg claims are evaluated on held-out folds against a centralized baseline, with per-center thresholds calibrated on training partitions and then applied to the reader subset; this is ordinary operating-point selection and does not force the reported sensitivity by construction. The inclusion of no-cyst controls in the no/low-risk negative class is a label-construct and external-validity concern, not circularity, because the outcome labels are not defined in terms of the model outputs and the paper explicitly reports the negative-class composition. No uniqueness theorem, fitted quantity, or ansatz is smuggled in from the authors' prior work to forbid alternative architectures or to define the reported AUCs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on label definitions (histopathology or three-year stability), on temporal proximity of MRI to pathology confirmation, and on the assumption that PanSegNet's automatic segmentation is a valid ROI for classification. These are domain assumptions stated in Sections 4.1 to 4.3, not derived results. The only hand-fitted numbers that affect reported operating-point performance are the FedProx mu and per-center threshold calibrations.

free parameters (2)
  • FedProx proximal coefficient mu = 0.1
    Selected from a sweep (0.005, 0.01, 0.1, 0.3) as the optimum on both modalities; this selection on validation data affects the federated AUC reported in Table 2.
  • Per-center clinically optimized decision threshold = Not reported (grid search values per center)
    Calibrated per center on the training partition by maximizing accuracy under constraints (sensitivity > 35%, specificity > 85%); used for the sensitivity and specificity values in Table 3 and the external evaluation. Tuning on training data can bias the reported operating point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Presumed-IPMN lesions without biopsy that remain stable on at least three years of imaging follow-up (growth less than 2.5 mm and no worrisome features) are labeled low-risk.
    Section 4.1 defines low-risk using three-year follow-up stability; this grounds 339 to 344 of the no/low-risk labels in the binary analysis.
  • domain assumption MRI scans acquired within six months of the confirmatory biopsy or surgical pathology reflect the lesion's malignant status at the time of imaging.
    Section 4.1 uses this temporal window to assign high-risk labels; if the MRI predates the pathology by up to six months, interval progression could mislabel some scans.
  • domain assumption Blinded radiologist scoring of Kyoto-criteria imaging features approximates the imaging-only information available to the classifier.
    Section 4.3 states the reader protocol; the head-to-head comparison assumes this protocol is a fair imaging-only benchmark.
  • domain assumption PanSegNet's automatic pancreas masks are adequate substitutes for radiologist-defined ROIs for the classification task.
    Section 2.2.1 compares mask sources; the main pipeline relies on PanSegNet segmentation, so any systematic mask error propagates to classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cyst-X: A Multi-Center MRI Benchmark and Federated Learning Framework for Malignancy-Risk Stratification of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDNUN5Q5

@misc{pith2026250722017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cyst-X: A Multi-Center MRI Benchmark and Federated Learning Framework for Malignancy-Risk Stratification of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDNUN5Q5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22017}
}
read the original abstract

Pancreatic cancer is projected to be the second-deadliest cancer by 2030, making early detection critical. Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), key cancer precursors, present a clinical dilemma, as current guidelines struggle to stratify malignancy risk, leading to unnecessary surgeries or missed diagnoses. Here, we introduce Cyst-X, a multi-center MRI benchmark and a federated learning framework for IPMN malignancy-risk stratification. The dataset comprises 1,461 abdominal MRI scans from 764 patients at seven international centers, with three-tier malignancy labels anchored in histopathology or three-year imaging follow-up and expert pancreas segmentations. The pipeline couples the PanSegNet pancreas segmenter with a 3D DenseNet-121 classifier and a parallel radiomics predictor. On internal cross-validation, the deep learning classifier reached a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.84-0.86) on T2-weighted MRI for high-risk versus low- or no-risk discrimination, with the average precision rising from a prevalence baseline of 0.23 to 0.64. This performance was preserved (AUC 0.85, FedProx) when training was distributed across institutions without exchange of raw patient images. Benchmarked against three blinded radiologists on a 629-case reader subset evaluated under imaging-only conditions, the classifier matched or exceeded sensitivity at comparable specificity. To accelerate research in early pancreatic cancer detection, we publicly release the Cyst-X dataset, segmentation masks, and trained models as the first large-scale, multi-centre MRI resource for pancreatic cystic neoplasm analysis.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gastroenterology164(5), 752–765 (2023)

    Stoffel, E.M., Brand, R.E., Goggins, M.: Pancreatic cancer: changing epidemi- ology and new approaches to risk assessment, early detection, and prevention. Gastroenterology164(5), 752–765 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Journal of oncology practice13(4), 265–269 (2016)

    Balaban, E.P., Mangu, P.B., Yee, N.S.: Locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline summary. Journal of oncology practice13(4), 265–269 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Pancreatology17(5), 738–753 (2017)

    Tanaka, M., Fern´ andez-del Castillo, C., Kamisawa, T., Jang, J.Y., Levy, P., Ohtsuka, T., Salvia, R., Shimizu, Y., Tada, M., Wolfgang, C.L.: Revisions of international consensus fukuoka guidelines for the management of ipmn of the pancreas. Pancreatology17(5), 738–753 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Pancreatology24(2), 255–270 (2024)

    Ohtsuka, T., Fernandez-del Castillo, C., Furukawa, T., Hijioka, S., Jang, J.- Y., Lennon, A.M., Miyasaka, Y., Ohno, E., Salvia, R., Wolfgang, C.L.,et al.: International evidence-based kyoto guidelines for the management of intraduc- tal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas. Pancreatology24(2), 255–270 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Pancreas48(6), 805–810 (2019)

    Corral, J.E., Hussein, S., Kandel, P., Bolan, C.W., Bagci, U., Wallace, M.B.: Deep learning to classify intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms using magnetic resonance imaging. Pancreas48(6), 805–810 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Current Opinion in Gastroenterology39(5), 436–447 (2023)

    Yao, L., Zhang, Z., Keles, E., Yazici, C., Tirkes, T., Bagci, U.: A review of deep learning and radiomics approaches for pancreatic cancer diagnosis from medical imaging. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology39(5), 436–447 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cancers16(24), 4268 (2024)

    Seyithanoglu, D., Durak, G., Keles, E., Medetalibeyoglu, A., Hong, Z., Zhang, Z., Taktak, Y.B., Cebeci, T., Tiwari, P., Velichko, Y.S.,et al.: Advances for managing pancreatic cystic lesions: Integrating imaging and ai innovations. Cancers16(24), 4268 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Journal of the American College of Radiology14(7), 911–923 (2017) 24

    Megibow, A.J., Baker, M.E., Morgan, D.E., Kamel, I.R., Sahani, D.V., Newman, E., Brugge, W.R., Berland, L.L., Pandharipande, P.V.: Management of incidental pancreatic cysts: a white paper of the acr incidental findings committee. Journal of the American College of Radiology14(7), 911–923 (2017) 24

    work page 2017

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Pancreatology17(2), 255–262 (2017)

    Heckler, M., Michalski, C.W., Schaefle, S., Kaiser, J., B¨ uchler, M.W., Hackert, T.: The sendai and fukuoka consensus criteria for the management of branch duct ipmn-a meta-analysis on their accuracy. Pancreatology17(2), 255–262 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    New England Journal of Medicine391(9), 832–843 (2024)

    Gonda, T.A., Cahen, D.L., Farrell, J.J.: Pancreatic cysts. New England Journal of Medicine391(9), 832–843 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    United European Gastroenterology Journal4(4), 580–586 (2016)

    Robles, E.P.-C., Maire, F., Cros, J., Vullierme, M.-P., Rebours, V., Sauvanet, A., Aubert, A., Dokmak, S., L´ evy, P., Ruszniewski, P.: Accuracy of 2012 international consensus guidelines for the prediction of malignancy of branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms ...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Maggi, G., Guarneri, G., Gasparini, G., Fogliati, A., Partelli, S., Falconi, M., Crippa, S.: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms: What is the most cost-effective follow-up strategy? Endoscopic Ultrasound7(5), 319–322 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica84(2021)

    Bulcke, A.V., Jaekers, J., Topal, H., Vanbeckevoort, D., Vandecaveye, V., Roskams, T., Weynand, B., Dekervel, J., Van Cutsem, E., Malenstein, H., et al.: Evaluating the accuracy of three international guidelines in identifying the risk of malignancy in pancreatic cysts: a retr...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics33(3), 487–495 (2023)

    Romutis, S., Brand, R.: Burden of new pancreatic cyst diagnosis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics33(3), 487–495 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Gastroenterology148(4), 819–822 (2015)

    Vege, S.S., Ziring, B., Jain, R., Moayyedi, P., Adams, M.A., Dorn, S.D., Dudley-Brown, S.L., Flamm, S.L., Gellad, Z.F., Gruss, C.B.,et al.: American gas- troenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cyst...

    2015

  8. [16]

    Gut67(5), 789–804 (2018)

    Pancreas, E.S.G.,et al.: European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut67(5), 789–804 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Medical image analysis99, 103382 (2025)

    Zhang, Z., Keles, E., Durak, G., Taktak, Y., Susladkar, O., Gorade, V., Jha, D., Ormeci, A.C., Medetalibeyoglu, A., Yao, L.,et al.: Large-scale multi-center ct and mri segmentation of pancreas with deep learning. Medical image analysis99, 103382 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Advances in Clinical Radiology5(1), 31–52 (2023)

    Zhang, Z., Yao, L., Keles, E., Velichko, Y., Bagci, U.: Deep learning algorithms for pancreas segmentation from radiology scans: A review. Advances in Clinical Radiology5(1), 31–52 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.04912 (2017) 25

    Cai, J., Lu, L., Xie, Y., Xing, F., Yang, L.: Improving deep pancreas segmentation in ct and mri images via recurrent neural contextual learning and direct loss function. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.04912 (2017) 25

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    In: Machine Learning in Medical Imaging: 12th International Workshop, MLMI 2021, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2021, Strasbourg, France, September 27, 2021, Proceedings 12, pp

    Proietto Salanitri, F., Bellitto, G., Irmakci, I., Palazzo, S., Bagci, U., Spamp- inato, C.: Hierarchical 3d feature learning forpancreas segmentation. In: Machine Learning in Medical Imaging: 12th International Workshop, MLMI 2021, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2021, Strasb...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Medical physics45(11), 5019–5029 (2018)

    Chakraborty, J., Midya, A., Gazit, L., Attiyeh, M., Langdon-Embry, L., Allen, P.J., Do, R.K., Simpson, A.L.: Ct radiomics to predict high-risk intraductal pap- illary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Medical physics45(11), 5019–5029 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Cancer Imaging21(1), 26 (2021)

    Cui, S., Tang, T., Su, Q., Wang, Y., Shu, Z., Yang, W., Gong, X.: Radiomic nomogram based on mri to predict grade of branching type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: a multicenter study. Cancer Imaging21(1), 26 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    In: 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018), pp

    Hussein, S., Kandel, P., Corral, J.E., Bolan, C.W., Wallace, M.B., Bagci, U.: Deep multi-modal classification of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (ipmn) with canonical correlation analysis. In: 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018), p...

    2018

  16. [24]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp

    LaLonde, R., Tanner, I., Nikiforaki, K., Papadakis, G.Z., Kandel, P., Bolan, C.W., Wallace, M.B., Bagci, U.: Inn: inflated neural networks for ipmn diagnosis. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 101–109 (2019). Springer

    2019

  17. [25]

    In: 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pp

    Salanitri, F.P., Bellitto, G., Palazzo, S., Irmakci, I., Wallace, M., Bolan, C., Engels, M., Hoogenboom, S., Aldinucci, M., Bagci, U.,et al.: Neural trans- formers for intraductal papillary mucosal neoplasms (ipmn) classification in mri images. In: 2022 44th Annual Internation...

    2022

  18. [26]

    In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, pp

    Yao, L., Zhang, Z., Demir, U., Keles, E., Vendrami, C., Agarunov, E., Bolan, C., Schoots, I., Bruno, M., Keswani, R.,et al.: Radiomics boosts deep learning model for ipmn classification. In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, pp. 134–143 (2023). Springer

    2023

  19. [27]

    Public law104, 191 (1996)

    Act, A.,et al.: Health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996. Public law104, 191 (1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    Regulation (eu)679(2016), 10–13 (2016)

    Regulation, P.: Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the european parliament and of the council. Regulation (eu)679(2016), 10–13 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, pp

    Zhang, Z., Bagci, U.: Dynamic linear transformer for 3d biomedical image seg- mentation. In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, pp. 171–180 (2022). Springer 26

    2022

  22. [30]

    Nature methods18(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 methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pp

    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: Proceedings of the International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pp. 272–284 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (2), 224–227 (1979)

    Davies, D.L., Bouldin, D.W.: A cluster separation measure. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (2), 224–227 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localiza- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 618–626 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00396 (2020)

    Schulz, K., Sixt, L., Tombari, F., Landgraf, T.: Restricting the flow: Information bottlenecks for attribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00396 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, pp

    Demir, U., Irmakci, I., Keles, E., Topcu, A., Xu, Z., Spampinato, C., Jambawa- likar, S., Turkbey, E., Turkbey, B., Bagci, U.: Information bottleneck attribution for visual explanations of diagnosis and prognosis. In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imagi...

    2021

  28. [36]

    In: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp

    McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., Arcas, B.A.: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 1273–1282 (2017). PMLR

    2017

  29. [37]

    Proceedings of Machine learning and systems2, 429–450 (2020)

    Li, T., Sahu, A.K., Zaheer, M., Sanjabi, M., Talwalkar, A., Smith, V.: Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. Proceedings of Machine learning and systems2, 429–450 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06440 (2020)

    Wang, H., Yurochkin, M., Sun, Y., Papailiopoulos, D., Khazaeni, Y.: Federated learning with matched averaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06440 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02054 (2019)

    Peng, X., Huang, Z., Zhu, Y., Saenko, K.: Federated adversarial domain adapta- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02054 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp

    Yao, C.-H., Gong, B., Qi, H., Cui, Y., Zhu, Y., Yang, M.-H.: Federated multi- target domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 1424–1433 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

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

    Liu, Q., Chen, C., Qin, J., Dou, Q., Heng, P.-A.: Feddg: Federated domain gen- eralization on medical image segmentation via episodic learning in continuous frequency space. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1013–1023 (2021) 27

    2021

  34. [42]

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

    Zhang, R., Xu, Q., Yao, J., Zhang, Y., Tian, Q., Wang, Y.: Federated domain generalization with generalization adjustment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3954–3963 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    In: ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp

    Pan, H., Wang, B., Zhang, Z., Zhu, X., Jha, D., Cetin, A.E., Spampinato, C., Bagci, U.: Domain generalization with fourier transform and soft thresholding. In: ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 2106–2110 (20...

    2024

  36. [44]

    In: ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp

    Pan, H., Jha, D., Biswas, K., Bagci, U.: Frequency-based federated domain gen- eralization for polyp segmentation. In: ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5 (2025). IEEE

    2025

  37. [45]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging42(7), 1920–1931 (2022)

    Kassem, H., Alapatt, D., Mascagni, P., Karargyris, A., Padoy, N.: Federated cycling (fedcy): Semi-supervised federated learning of surgical phases. IEEE transactions on medical imaging42(7), 1920–1931 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07557 (2017)

    Geyer, R.C., Klein, T., Nabi, M.: Differentially private federated learning: A client level perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07557 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    Cheng, A., Wang, P., Zhang, X.S., Cheng, J.: Differentially private feder- ated learning with local regularization and sparsification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10122–10131 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Security, pp

    Bonawitz, K., Ivanov, V., Kreuter, B., Marcedone, A., McMahan, H.B., Patel, S., Ramage, D., Segal, A., Seth, K.: Practical secure aggregation for privacy- preserving machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Security, ...

    2017

  41. [49]

    Medical physics47(12), 6029–6038 (2020)

    Sadri, A.R., Janowczyk, A., Zhou, R., Verma, R., Beig, N., Antunes, J., Mad- abhushi, A., Tiwari, P., Viswanath, S.E.: Mrqy—an open-source tool for quality control of mr imaging data. Medical physics47(12), 6029–6038 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    In: Proceeedings of the 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp

    Yushkevich, P.A., Gao, Y., Gerig, G.: Itk-snap: An interactive tool for semi- automatic segmentation of multi-modality biomedical images. In: Proceeedings of the 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 3342–...

    2016

  43. [51]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp

    Shen, Z., Zhang, M., Zhao, H., Yi, S., Li, H.: Efficient attention: Attention with linear complexities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 3531–3539 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Advances in neural information processing 28 systems32(2019)

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., et al.: Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing 28 systems32(2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701 (2022)

    Cardoso, M.J., Li, W., Brown, R., Ma, N., Kerfoot, E., Wang, Y., Murrey, B., Myronenko, A., Zhao, C., Yang, D., et al.: Monai: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    International journal of computer vision43(1), 7–27 (2001)

    Malik, J., Belongie, S., Leung, T., Shi, J.: Contour and texture analysis for image segmentation. International journal of computer vision43(1), 7–27 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence27(8), 1226–1238 (2005)

    Peng, H., Long, F., Ding, C.: Feature selection based on mutual information crite- ria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence27(8), 1226–1238 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    In: Proceedings of 3rd International Con- ference on Document Analysis and Recognition, vol

    Ho, T.K.: Random decision forests. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Con- ference on Document Analysis and Recognition, vol. 1, pp. 278–282 (1995). IEEE

    1995

  49. [57]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., Weinberger, K.Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4700–4708 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

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

    2016

  51. [59]

    6546–6555 (2018)

    Hara, K., Kataoka, H., Satoh, Y.: Can spatiotemporal 3d cnns retrace the history of 2d cnns and imagenet? In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6546–6555 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Tan, M., Le, Q.: Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neu- ral networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 6105–6114 (2019). PMLR

    2019

  53. [61]

    Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine42(6), 1072–1081 (1999)

    Ny´ ul, L.G., Udupa, J.K.: On standardizing the mr image intensity scale. Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine42(6), 1072–1081 (1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    Loshchilov, I.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017) 29 Appendix A Supplementary Materials A.1 Uniform manifold approximation and projection To calculate theUMAPfor dimension reduction, each feature was normalized across the dataset usi...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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