trAIce3D: A Prompt-Driven Transformer Based U-Net for Semantic Segmentation of Microglial Cells from Large-Scale 3D Microscopy Images

Alessandro Venturino; Arsalan Firoozi; MohammadAmin Alamalhoda; Sandra Siegert

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 26 references

trAIce3D: A Prompt-Driven Transformer Based U-Net for Semantic Segmentation of Microglial Cells from Large-Scale 3D Microscopy Images

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read trAIce3D claims that a two-stage, prompt-driven transformer U-Net can segment both somas and branches of 41,230 microglial cells in large 3D microscopy images, with the large variant reaching 87.5 percent soma F1 and 0.63 branch Dice.

desk verdict A useful two-stage 3D microglia segmentation pipeline with a genuine but modest architectural twist; the numbers are plausible, but the data-split ambiguity must be resolved before I trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22635 v1 pith:XEKDCOJX submitted 2025-07-30 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

MohammadAmin Alamalhoda , Arsalan Firoozi , Alessandro Venturino , Sandra Siegert This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG

keywords 3Dcellsegmentationmicrogliamorphologyprompt-basedvisiontransformerU-Netlarge-scalemicroscopydeeplearningfortracingsemanticinstance

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

The paper tries to establish that one deep-learning pipeline can segment microglial cells at instance level in large 3D microscopy volumes, capturing both the cell body and its fine branching processes without per-dataset hyperparameter tuning. The method, trAIce3D, works in two passes: a sliding-window transformer U-Net finds every soma, and then the same architecture, augmented with cross-attention blocks in its skip connections, uses each soma's coordinates as a prompt to refine that cell's branches in a local volume. Trained on 41,230 microglial cells, the largest variant reports soma F1 of 87.5 percent against 64 percent for nnU-Net and branch Dice of 0.63. If these numbers hold, automated analysis of microglial morphology becomes scalable to whole-brain studies of development, aging, and neurodegeneration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the prompt-conditioned two-stage U-Net. Stage one is a 3D U-Net whose encoder is a hierarchical vision transformer that splits volumes into $(8,8,2)$ patches and progressively merges them, with a CNN decoder; sliding-window inference covers the whole image and outputs soma locations. Stage two reuses those weights and inserts Residual Cross-Attention Modules (RCAMs), two-way cross-attention blocks in the skip connections, so the soma coordinate, encoded through a Fourier feature mapping, is fused with image features at every scale. The prompt encoder maps normalized soma coordinates to a trainable embedding, and the branch model is trained with a weighted loss that includes clDice to preserve thin tubular branches.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random subset of the 41,230 cells with two independent expert tracers on the raw volumes, compute inter-operator Dice on somas and branches, and retrain trAIce3D on one expert's labels while testing on the other's; if soma F1 falls back toward or below nnU-Net's 64 percent, or the two experts disagree by more than the reported performance margins, the claimed advantage is an artifact of a single label source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

trAIce3D claims that microglial morphology segmentation in volumetric images is best decomposed into a detect-then-refine pipeline: first a binary soma segmentation over the whole image using a U-Net with a hierarchical 3D vision transformer encoder and sliding-window inference, then an instance-level branch segmentation in which each detected soma acts as a point prompt for a Residual Cross-Attention Module in the skip connections. The same encoder-decoder weights are transferred from the soma stage to the branch stage, and branch training uses a combination of Dice, focal, and clDice losses chosen for tubular structures. On the authors' dataset of 41,230 cells, the largest variant achieves soma F1 87.5 percent and branch Dice 0.63, with 5-fold cross-validation averages of 85.2 percent and 0.61, supporting the claim that model scale and embedding dimension drive the ability to represent complex branching morphology.

Load-bearing premise

The engineering results stand or fall on the assumption that the Imaris filament traces, manually verified in the morphOMICs dataset, are an accurate ground truth for somas and branches; any systematic tracing error or operator bias in those labels is inherited by all reported F1 and Dice scores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Microglial morphology can be quantified automatically across entire brain volumes, removing the semi-automated tracing bottleneck that limits current studies.
The soma detection stage alone outperforms the CNN baselines tested, so whole-volume cell-body counting becomes feasible at scale.
Branch Dice of 0.63 with average path-length difference 0.77 and Hausdorff distance 5.1 means segmentations capture the main arbor but not the finest process detail.
All variants share one architecture, so users can trade memory and speed (0.5, 2, or 6 GB per tile and roughly 90, 50, or 30 volumes per minute) against accuracy.
Because the prompt encoder accepts arbitrary point coordinates, the pipeline is positioned to extend to neurons and astrocytes with similar morphology, as the authors state.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: because the prompt encoder is generic point conditioning, the same cross-attention mechanism could be applied to other point-annotation tasks in 3D, such as segmenting dendritic spines or user-clicked landmarks, not just somas.
Editorial extension: the fold-to-fold spread in branch Dice (0.53 to 0.68) suggests regional morphology differences drive difficulty, so a per-region stratified evaluation would show whether the prompt-based design absorbs regional variation or would need region-specific fine-tuning.
Editorial extension: comparing trAIce3D's branch output against an independent automated tracing tool would estimate the label-noise floor in the reported numbers, since the training labels come from a single tracing pipeline.
Editorial extension: because the pipeline returns per-cell instances, downstream morphology measures such as process length and branching counts can be computed directly from its masks, connecting segmentation quality to the biological questions the dataset was built to answer.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: useful engineering paper, not a conceptual breakthrough. The pipeline is real and the dataset is large. The two-step design — soma detection, then prompt-conditioned branch refinement — is a sensible way to handle instance-level morphology, and the RCAM cross-attention block in the skip connections is a genuine, if modest, addition. The 41k-cell dataset from the morphOMICs resource is a serious asset, and the code is public. The paper honestly lists limitations and provides compute figures, which I appreciate.

The most important problem is the split. Section 2.1 says overlapping cubes are used for soma training and cell-centered cubes for branch training; Section 3.1 says an 80/15/5 split, but never says whether the split happens at the level of whole source images or individual cubes. If overlapping or cell-centered cubes from the same original image land in both training and test, the test metrics are inflated by near-duplicate voxels. That would compromise every number in Tables 2 and 3, and the generalization claim in the abstract. This is not a confirmed flaw — the authors may have done an image-disjoint split — but the manuscript currently gives the reader no way to tell. That must be stated explicitly.

The other weaknesses are secondary. Comparing only against an untrained CellPose weakens that baseline comparison; nnU-Net is the meaningful opponent. Branch segmentation is benchmarked only against the authors' own variants, so "generalization" beyond this dataset is not actually demonstrated. Table 2 lacks error bars, and there is no ablation that isolates what RCAM adds over a plain skip connection. The ground-truth labels come from Imaris tracing with manual verification; that's standard, though inter-operator agreement would strengthen it.

Who this is for: people working on microglia or similar tangled-cell morphology who need an off-the-shelf tool. The paper deserves a serious referee — the architecture is sensible and the dataset is valuable — but I would not accept the current numbers until the split is clarified and the comparisons are made fairer.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents trAIce3D, a two-stage transformer-based U-Net for segmenting microglial somas and branches in large 3D microscopy volumes. Stage 1 detects somas with a sliding-window 3D U-Net whose encoder is a hierarchical vision transformer; stage 2 refines each cell by using the soma location as a prompt and adding cross-attention modules in the skip connections. Three model sizes (S, M, L) are trained on 41,230 microglia from a published dataset and evaluated with F1, Dice score, Average Path Length Difference, and Hausdorff Distance. The paper reports that trAIce3DL achieves a soma F1 of 87.5% versus 64% for nnU-Net and a branch Dice of 0.63, and claims that the method improves segmentation accuracy and generalization. The central architecture is coherent and the code is released, but the evaluation as written leaves unresolved questions about the train/test split granularity, baseline fairness, and external validity of the branch-segmentation results.

Significance. If the reported numbers survive a clean image-disjoint evaluation, trAIce3D would be a practically useful, open-source tool for automated microglia morphology analysis, a task for which few complete pipelines exist. The two-stage prompt-based design, the use of cross-attention in skip connections, and the explicit efficiency measurements are valuable contributions. However, the current evidence for the strong claims in the abstract and conclusion is incomplete: the branch-segmentation claim is supported only by comparisons among the authors' own model variants, and the soma comparison uses an inference-only CellPose baseline without error bars. The generalization claim is not yet supported by an external dataset or independent label validation. The paper's strengths—clear architecture description, open code, and a large training dataset—make the manuscript worth revising rather than rejecting.

major comments (4)

[§3.1 and §2.1] The manuscript does not specify whether the 80/15/5 split and the 5-fold cross-validation are performed at the whole-image level or at the cube/cell level. Since §2.1 states that overlapping 256×256×16 cubes are used for Soma training and that cell-centered cubes are used for Branch training, a cube-level or cell-level split could place nearly identical voxel content in both training and test sets. This would leak training information into evaluation and inflate all metrics in Tables 2 and 3, including the nnU-Net comparison and the cross-validation results. Please state the split granularity explicitly; if the split was not image-disjoint, re-run the evaluation on a whole-image split and report the resulting numbers.
[Table 2 and §3.1] The soma segmentation baseline comparison is weakened by two omissions: CellPose was used inference-only without any training or fine-tuning, and no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any model in Table 2. As presented, the headline difference between trAIce3DL (F1 87.5%) and nnU-Net (64%) cannot be assessed for variance or reproducibility. Please report means and standard deviations across cross-validation folds or repeated runs for all methods, and either train CellPose on the same 3D data or explicitly state the limitation that it was used as a frozen off-the-shelf baseline.
[§3.1 and Table 2] Branch segmentation is evaluated only against the authors' own model variants (trAIce3DS, M, L) on the authors' own dataset, with no external baseline such as a 3D U-Net, a published microglia/neuron tracer, or a standard tubular-segmentation method. The abstract's claim that trAIce3D 'significantly improves segmentation accuracy' is therefore not supported for the branch-segmentation task as it stands. Please add an external baseline applied to the same data, or alternatively restrict the claim to comparisons among the presented variants.
[§2.1 and §4] The supervision for both tasks comes entirely from Imaris filament tracing with manual verification from the authors' earlier study (reference [17]), and no inter-operator agreement or independent expert re-annotation is reported. This matters because any systematic tracing bias or operator bias in the ground-truth labels propagates directly into all reported F1, Dice, APLD, and Hausdorff metrics. In addition, the conclusion states that performance drops under varying imaging conditions, which is in tension with the abstract's generalization claim. Please provide label-quality evidence from [17] or a small independent re-annotation subset, and temper the generalization claim to match the actual evaluation scope (same dataset, same acquisition conditions).

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and §2.3] The abstract calls the first training phase 'self-supervised Soma Segmentation,' but §2.3 says this phase trains on binary soma masks, which is supervised learning. Please correct the terminology.
[§3.2] The sentence reporting trAIce3DL's branch metrics (DS 0.63, APLD 0.77, HD 5.1) cites 'Table 3,' but those values appear in Table 2; Table 3 reports the 5-fold cross-validation. Please fix the table reference.
[§2.2] The description of patch merging says each merge 'reduces spatial resolution by a factor of 8' while increasing embedding dimension by a factor of 2; this is ambiguous because the factor of 8 refers to volume reduction, not linear resolution. Please clarify that each merge halves each spatial axis, giving a volumetric reduction of 8.
[§2.2] The Fourier feature mapping is attributed to reference [20] (Vaswani et al., 'Attention Is All You Need'); this is not the canonical citation for Fourier features. Please cite an appropriate source (e.g., Tancik et al., 'Fourier Features Let Networks Learn High Frequency Functions in Low Dimensional Domains').
[Table 3 and §3.1] The text says 5-fold cross-validation was conducted 'for both segmentation tasks,' but Table 3 reports results only for trAIce3DL. Please clarify whether only the largest variant was cross-validated, or provide the corresponding tables for S and M.
[§3.2] The Average Path Length Difference (APLD) metric is not defined in the paper. Please provide a definition or a citation so readers can interpret the reported values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: evaluation is on held-out data; the only self-citation is a published dataset, not a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard two-stage supervised segmentation pipeline. Soma and branch models are trained on labeled data from a published dataset [17] and evaluated on a held-out 80/15/5 split and 5-fold cross-validation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: all reported metrics are computed on data not used for training that model. The only self-citation is reference [17], the morphOMICs dataset, which was published separately with manual Imaris verification; using this dataset as ground truth is independent evidence, not a circular argument. The branch-segmentation evaluation compares only the authors' own variants because no external 3D microglia instance segmentation benchmark exists; this is a limitation in external validation, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The potential train/test cube overlap noted by the skeptic would be a data-split validity flaw if confirmed, but the paper does not specify the split granularity, and flagging it would require speculation about the experimental setup. Under the stated rules, no circular step can be exhibited with a direct quote and reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper introduces no new physical or biological entities. The main epistemic load is carried by the Imaris-derived labels, the split design, and the claim that no external baseline exists. The hand-chosen hyperparameters are standard for deep learning and do not make the result circular, but they mean the performance numbers are specific to this configuration.

free parameters (8)

window size = 256x256x16 pixels
Chosen as input size; determines receptive field and prompt context; not derived from data.
patch size = 8x8x2
Patchify scheme for the 3D vision transformer; manual choice.
embedding dimensions = 32, 64, 128
Variant sizes S, M, and L; the paper argues larger embeddings improve morphology capture.
loss weights = Soma: 0.5 Focal + 0.5 Dice; Branch: 0.2 Focal + 0.6 Dice + 0.2 clDice
Manually chosen balance between segmentation objectives.
focal loss hyperparameters = alpha=0.25, gamma=3
Standard but manually selected values.
cube exclusion threshold = exclude cubes with <5% microglia volume or discontinuous labels
Data preprocessing rule that affects the training and evaluation distribution.
learning rate schedule = 1e-4 with cosine decay to 1e-6, 50 warmup epochs
Optimization schedule chosen manually.
training epochs and batch size = 200 epochs, batch size 64, gradient accumulation 2
Training protocol manually set.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Imaris filament tracing with manual verification in the morphOMICs dataset (reference [17]) provides accurate ground truth for soma and branch morphology.
All training and evaluation metrics are computed against these labels; no independent validation of label accuracy is reported. Sections 2.1 and 3.2.
domain assumption The train/test and 5-fold splits do not allow overlapping cubes from the same original image to appear in both training and evaluation sets.
The paper states overlapping cubes are used for soma training and does not specify image-level splitting; leakage would inflate reported scores. Sections 2.1 and 3.1.
domain assumption No publicly available models, pipelines, or large datasets exist for 3D microglia instance-level segmentation.
Used to justify evaluating branch segmentation only against the authors' own variants. Section 3.1.
standard math The standard mathematical properties of scaled dot-product attention, patch merging, and clDice topology loss hold as published.
Equations 1 through 4 rely on published attention and topology-preserving loss formulations; the paper does not modify or prove these.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of trAIce3D: A Prompt-Driven Transformer Based U-Net for Semantic Segmentation of Microglial Cells from Large-Scale 3D Microscopy Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEKDCOJX

@misc{pith2026250722635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: trAIce3D: A Prompt-Driven Transformer Based U-Net for Semantic Segmentation of Microglial Cells from Large-Scale 3D Microscopy Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEKDCOJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22635}
}

read the original abstract

The shape of a cell contains essential information about its function within the biological system. Segmenting these structures from large-scale 3D microscopy images is challenging, limiting clinical insights especially for microglia, immune-associated cells involved in neurodegenerative diseases. Existing segmentation methods mainly focus on cell bodies, struggle with overlapping structures, perform poorly on noisy images, require hyperparameter tuning for each new dataset, or rely on tedious semi-automated approaches. We introduce trAIce3D, a deep-learning architecture designed for precise microglia segmentation, capturing both somas and branches. It employs a two-stage approach: first, a 3D U-Net with vision transformers in the encoder detects somas using a sliding-window technique to cover the entire image. Then, the same architecture, enhanced with cross-attention blocks in skip connections, refines each soma and its branches by using soma coordinates as a prompt and a 3D window around the target cell as input. Training occurs in two phases: self-supervised Soma Segmentation, followed by prompt-based Branch Segmentation, leveraging pre-trained weights from the first phase. Trained and evaluated on a dataset of 41,230 microglial cells, trAIce3D significantly improves segmentation accuracy and generalization, enabling scalable analysis of complex cellular morphologies. While optimized for microglia, its architecture can extend to other intricate cell types, such as neurons and astrocytes, broadening its impact on neurobiological research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22635 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of the trAIce3D segmentation pipeline and models architecture. 2.1 Dataset and Data Augmentation We utilized data from a published microglia morphology study [17] containing 41,230 annotated cells from 230 mouse brain images. Microglial processes were traced using Imaris filament-tracing plugin v9.2 with manual verification. Original images (median dimensions [2304, 2560, 56]) were standardized to [0.4, 0.… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Examples of qualitative results of trAIce3DL. Branch Segmentation model was initialized with encoder/decoder weights from its corresponding Soma Segmentation training. Performance was evaluated using three complementary metrics: Dice Score (DS), Average Path Length Difference (APLD), and Hausdorff Distance (HD)—measuring spatial accuracy and branching topology. 3.2 Results The performance of trAIce3D was evaluated… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[17]

Colombo, G., Cubero, R.J.A., Kanari, L., Venturino, A., Schulz, R., Scolamiero, M., Agerberg, J., Mathys, H., Tsai, L.-H., Chachólski, W., Hess, K., Siegert, S.: A tool for mapping microglial morphology, morphOMICs, reveals brain-region and sex-dependent phenotypes.Nature Neuroscience(2022)

work page 2022
[1]

Hanisch, U.K., Kettenmann, H.: Microglia: active sensor and versatile effector cells in the normal and pathologic brain.Nature Neuroscience(2007)

work page 2007
[2]

Sierra, A., Encinas, J.M., Deudero, J.J.P., Chancey, J.H., Enikolopov, G., Overstreet-Wadiche, L.S., Tsirka, S.E., Maletic-Savatic, M.: Microglia shape adult hippocampal neurogenesis through apoptosis-coupled phagocytosis.Cell Stem Cell (2010)

work page 2010
[3]

van Ooyen, A

van Pelt, J., Graham, B.P., Uylings, H.B.M.: Formation of Dendritic Branching Patterns. van Ooyen, A. (ed.)Modeling Neural Development(2003)

work page 2003
[4]

Meijering, E.: Neuron tracing in perspective.Cytometry Part A(2010)

work page 2010
[5]

Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomed- ical Image Segmentation. Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) MICCAI (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W

Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation. Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W. (eds.)MICCAI (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Net- works for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentation.Proceedings of the Fourth In- ternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 26 references

[8]

Falk, T., Mai, D., Bensch, R., Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Marrakchi, Y., Böhm, A., Deubner, J., Jäckel, Z., Seiwald, K., Dovzhenko, A., Tietz, O., Dal Bosco, C., Lapuschkin, S., Binder, A., Ushakov, K., Sinha, R., Subramanian, L., Meyer, O., Cunningham, G., Schubert, P., Wagne...

2019
[9]

Abdolhoseini, M., Kluge, M.G., Walker, F.R., Johnson, S.J.: Segmentation, trac- ing, and quantification of microglial cells from 3D image stacks.Scientific Reports (2019)

2019
[10]

Martinez, A., Hériché, J.-K., Calvo, M., Tischer, C., Otxoa-de-Amezaga, A., Pe- dragosa, J., Bosch, A., Planas, A.M., Petegnief, V.: Characterization of microglia behaviour in healthy and pathological conditions with image analysis tools.Open Biology (2023)

2023
[11]

eNeuro (2018)

York, E.M., LeDue, J.M., Bernier, L.-P., MacVicar, B.A.: 3DMorph: Automatic Analysis of Microglial Morphology in Three Dimensions from Ex Vivo and In Vivo Imaging. eNeuro (2018)

2018
[12]

9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)(2021) 10 Alamalhoda et al

Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., Houlsby, N.: An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. 9th International Conference on L...

2021
[13]

Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Lin, S., Guo, B.: Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows.Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)(2021)

2021
[14]

de Bruijne, M., Cattin, P., Cotin, S., Padoy, N., Speidel, S., Zheng, Y., Essert, C

Wang, H., Cao, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, J., Zhu, S., Huang, Q., Tian, Q.: TransBTS: Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation Using Transformer. de Bruijne, M., Cattin, P., Cotin, S., Padoy, N., Speidel, S., Zheng, Y., Essert, C. (eds.)MICCAI (2021)

2021
[15]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)(2020)

Kirillov, A., Wu, Y., He, K., Girshick, R.: PointRend: Image Segmentation as Rendering. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)(2020)

2020
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13465(2023)

Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.-Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R.: Segment Anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13465(2023)

2023 arXiv
[18]

Pérez-García, F., Sparks, R., Ourselin, S.: TorchIO: a Python library for efficient loading, preprocessing, augmentation, and patch-based sampling of medical images in deep learning.Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine(2021)

2021
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14135 (2022)

Dao,T.,Fu,D.Y.,Ermon,S.,Rudra,A.,Ré,C.:FlashAttention:Fastandmemory- efficient exact attention with IO-awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14135 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[20]

Vaswani,A.,Shazeer,N.,Parmar,N.,Uszkoreit,J.,Jones,L.,Gomez,A.N.,Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I.: Attention Is All You Need.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2017)

2017
[21]

Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., Desmaison, A., Kopf, A., Yang, E., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., Chintala, S.: PyTorch: An Imperativ...

2019
[22]

Nature Methods(2021)

Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Methods(2021)

2021
[23]

Eschweiler, D., Smith, R.S., Stegmaier, J.: Robust 3D Cell Segmentation: Extend- ing the View of Cellpose.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.00794(2021)

2021 arXiv
[24]

Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Dollár, P.: Focal Loss for Dense Ob- ject Detection.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2020)

2020
[25]

Shit, S., Paetzold, J.C., Sekuboyina, A., Ezhov, I., Unger, A., Zhylka, A., Pluim, J.P.W., Bauer, U., Menze, B.H.: clDice – A Novel Topology-Preserving Loss Func- tion for Tubular Structure Segmentation.Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Re...

2021
[26]

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2023)

Cai, Y., Long, Y., Han, Z., Liu, M., Zheng, Y., Yang, W., Chen, L.: Swin Unet3D – A Three-Dimensional Medical Image Segmentation Network Combining Vision Transformer and Convolution. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [17]

Colombo, G., Cubero, R.J.A., Kanari, L., Venturino, A., Schulz, R., Scolamiero, M., Agerberg, J., Mathys, H., Tsai, L.-H., Chachólski, W., Hess, K., Siegert, S.: A tool for mapping microglial morphology, morphOMICs, reveals brain-region and sex-dependent phenotypes.Nature Neuroscience(2022)

work page 2022

[2] [1]

Hanisch, U.K., Kettenmann, H.: Microglia: active sensor and versatile effector cells in the normal and pathologic brain.Nature Neuroscience(2007)

work page 2007

[3] [2]

Sierra, A., Encinas, J.M., Deudero, J.J.P., Chancey, J.H., Enikolopov, G., Overstreet-Wadiche, L.S., Tsirka, S.E., Maletic-Savatic, M.: Microglia shape adult hippocampal neurogenesis through apoptosis-coupled phagocytosis.Cell Stem Cell (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [3]

van Ooyen, A

van Pelt, J., Graham, B.P., Uylings, H.B.M.: Formation of Dendritic Branching Patterns. van Ooyen, A. (ed.)Modeling Neural Development(2003)

work page 2003

[5] [4]

Meijering, E.: Neuron tracing in perspective.Cytometry Part A(2010)

work page 2010

[6] [5]

Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomed- ical Image Segmentation. Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) MICCAI (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W

Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation. Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W. (eds.)MICCAI (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [7]

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Net- works for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentation.Proceedings of the Fourth In- ternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), (2016)

work page 2016