Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

FedCC: A Low-Resource Federated Adaptation of Foundation Models for Robust Corpus Callosum localization in Fetal Ultrasound Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Adapting a frozen DINOv2 backbone with low-rank LoRA modules under federated averaging reaches 0.857 mAP@50 for corpus callosum detection in fetal ultrasound, beating full fine-tuning while cutting transmitted parameters from 24.4M to 2.9M.

desk verdict A useful FL+PEFT application to fetal CC localization with a new dataset, but the central LoRA advantage rests on unrepeated, small-sample numbers and needs statistical support before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18283 v1 pith:E4XVND6X submitted 2026-06-30 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CV

Alessandro Di Matteo , Sara Moccia , Giuseppe Rizzo , Gianpaolo Grisolia , Ricciarda Raffaelli , Lorenzo Vasciaveo , Francesco D'Antonio , Maria Chiara Fiorentino This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CV
keywords federatedlearningfetalultrasoundcorpuscallosumlocalizationfoundationmodelsparameter-efficientfine-tuninglow-rankadaptationDINOv2domainshift
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 proposes FedCC, a federated-learning system that locates the corpus callosum in fetal ultrasound images, and argues that the right way to adapt a foundation model across hospitals is to freeze the backbone entirely and share only small low-rank adapters and a light detection head. In a simulated three-site federation using FedAvg, the frozen DINOv2 backbone with LoRA adapters reached an average mAP@50 (mean precision at 50% box overlap) of 0.857 and F1-score of 0.803, outperforming both full fine-tuning (0.721/0.733) and encoder freezing (0.715/0.704). The same configuration lifted the hardest client from 0.579 to 0.788 mAP@50 and cut per-round transmitted parameters from 24.4M to 2.9M, an 8.5x communication saving. The paper also reports that natural-image pretraining outperformed an additional fetal-ultrasound pretraining step, and that the federated model beat its own centralized counterpart trained on pooled data. If correct, this makes privacy-preserving multi-center training of fetal neurosonography tools substantially cheaper and more robust to scanner differences.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pairing of a frozen DINOv2 backbone (a self-supervised vision transformer pretrained on diverse images) with LoRA adapters—low-rank matrices A and B inserted into the query and value projections so each weight update is ΔW=BA with rank r=8—plus a compact single-scale head built from YOLOv8's SPPF, convolution, C3f, and detection layers. Only the LoRA adapters and head weights are optimized and exchanged; the backbone stays on each client and is never transmitted, which is what produces the 8.5x communication reduction. The single-scale head matters as much as the adapters: replacing it with 2- or 3-scale heads dropped average mAP@50 from 0.857 to 0.757 and 0.741, respect

What would settle it

Hold out an entire fourth clinical site or a never-seen ultrasound scanner, train FedCC only on the original three clients, and measure mAP@50 on that held-out site; if the score drops far below the in-federation average or below a full-fine-tuning baseline on the same held-out data, the robustness-across-domains claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FedCC's central claim is that parameter-efficient federated adaptation—a frozen self-supervised ViT backbone, LoRA matrices inserted into attention query and value projections, and a single-scale YOLO-style head with only 2.9M trainable parameters—is the best operating point for corpus callosum detection under inter-site domain shift. Under FedAvg, this configuration achieved 0.857 average mAP@50 and 0.803 F1-score on the three-site test split, ahead of full fine-tuning (0.721 mAP@50, 0.733 F1) and encoder freezing (0.715, 0.704). The improvement was largest on Client 3, the hardest domain, where mAP@50 rose to 0.788 versus 0.579 under full fine-tuning. The authors explain this as LoRA const

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a simulated federation of three Italian sites with full client participation, synchronized rounds, and test sets drawn from those same three sites represents real privacy-preserving multi-center deployment; if a truly held-out scanner or protocol is added, the reported 0.857 mAP@50—especially the 0.788 on the hardest site—may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hospitals can collaboratively train a corpus-callosum detector without sharing ultrasound images, annotations, or backbone weights; only 2.9M adapter/head parameters move per round.
  • The 8.5x communication cut makes foundation-model adaptation practical in bandwidth-limited clinical networks, not just research clusters.
  • Federated aggregation with LoRA can outperform centralized training on pooled data for heterogeneous, imbalanced multi-site data, suggesting aggregation acts as structured multi-domain training.
  • For this task, the breadth of large-scale natural-image pretraining outweighs a subsequent fetal-ultrasound self-supervised pretraining step in the federated setting.
  • LoRA's built-in low-rank regularization may remove the need for proximal terms such as FedProx, simplifying federated deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the mechanism would compare FedCC against centralized training with explicit domain-balanced sampling; if the gap persists, the federated aggregation itself—not just seeing more data—is the active ingredient.
  • The same recipe likely transfers to other small fetal-brain landmarks (cavum septi pellucidi, cerebellar vermis) and to other ultrasound targets, since nothing in the architecture is corpus-callosum-specific apart from the data.
  • The current evidence cannot separate 'federated training is good' from 'three sites are not enough to expose a held-out domain': all test frames come from the same three sites, and the paper's Section 6 acknowledges real deployments may involve asynchronous updates and client dropout, which are untested.
  • A modest extension would measure the actual privacy/security properties—e.g., whether shared LoRA parameters can be inverted to recover image-level information—since the paper claims privacy preservation but provides no attack analysis.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedCC, a federated learning framework for corpus callosum (CC) localization in fetal ultrasound. It combines a frozen DINOv2 backbone with LoRA adapters and a lightweight YOLO-style detection head, exchanging only LoRA/head parameters across clients. On a self-collected multi-center dataset of 10,970 frames from 58 patients at three sites, the authors report an average mAP@50 of 0.857 and an F1-score of 0.803 under FedAvg, outperforming full fine-tuning and encoder-freezing baselines, while reducing trainable parameters from 24.4M to 2.9M (an 8.5x parameter reduction). The paper includes extensive comparisons across backbones (DINOv2, SAM, UltraSAM, UltraFedFM), adaptation strategies, and aggregation methods.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper provides a practical and privacy-preserving recipe for adapting large visual foundation models in federated medical imaging: a frozen backbone with low-rank adapters and a compact detection head can match or exceed full fine-tuning at a fraction of the communication cost. The newly collected multi-center fetal US dataset and the systematic comparison against multiple foundation-model baselines are useful contributions. However, the central comparison currently rests on point estimates without any measure of variance, and the most challenging client's test set is very small; the communication-efficiency claim is inferred from parameter counts rather than measured. These issues need to be addressed before the comparative conclusions are fully convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Table 4; §3.3, Table 2] The headline result (DINOv2base+LoRA under FedAvg: mAP50 0.857 vs 0.721 for full FT) is based on a single run per configuration. No seeds, repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported anywhere. The largest per-client gap is on Client 3 (mAP50 0.788 vs 0.579), but Client 3's test set has only 3 patients (Table 2 reports 710 images, while Section 3.3 text gives 683 images). Since frames from the same patient are highly correlated, the effective sample size for this client-level metric is effectively 3. The observed advantage on C3, and hence the average gap, could be a sampling artifact. Please provide variance estimates (e.g., multiple federated runs with different seeds, per-patient bootstrap confidence intervals) or temper the 'outperforms' claim.
  2. [§3.3 vs. Table 2] There is an internal inconsistency in the data split for Client 3. Section 3.3 states 2,165 training / 472 validation / 683 test images, while Table 2 reports 1,971 / 445 / 710 for the same client. This discrepancy makes it unclear which split was actually used to produce Table 4, and it must be corrected for reproducibility.
  3. [§5, Tables 4 and 5] Several table entries are arithmetically inconsistent. In Table 4, the FedProx DINOv2base-Proposed row reports F1 values exactly equal to the Precision values (0.752 / 0.922 / 0.683), which is inconsistent with the stated Precision/Recall pairs (e.g., C1 Precision=0.752, Recall=0.739 gives F1≈0.745, not 0.752). In Table 5, the Precision, Recall, and F1 columns are identical for both the 3-scale and 2-scale detection-head rows, which is implausible and likely a table-generation error. These errors undermine confidence in the numerical results and must be corrected and re-verified.
  4. [Abstract; §6; Figure 6] The abstract and discussion claim an '8.5x reduction in communication cost' based solely on the trainable parameter count (2.9M vs 24.4M). In federated learning, per-round communication also includes optimizer state, aggregation overhead, encoding, and potential secure-aggregation costs; actual bytes transferred are not measured. The claim is defensible as a parameter-count ratio, but it should be stated as such, with a measurement of actual communication or a caveat that it is an approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] Equation numbering restarts at (1) in Section 4.2 after already being used in Section 3.1. Renumber equations sequentially throughout the manuscript.
  2. [§6, Limitations] The paper appropriately acknowledges the simulated federated setting and the lack of an external held-out center. However, the abstract and Section 6 state 'robustness across heterogeneous domains' as a finding. Since all test sets are drawn from the same three sites used for training, the claim should be qualified as robustness to the domain shift present among the participating sites, not to unseen centers.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption says ground truth is in red and predictions in green, but the figure appears to be in color and may not be accessible to color-blind readers. Consider using different line styles or adding a grayscale-visible distinction.
  4. [§8] Typo: 'Aknowledgements' should be 'Acknowledgements'.
  5. [Code Availability] The statement that code will be made public upon acceptance is useful, but consider releasing at least the evaluation protocol and hyperparameter configuration for reproducibility even before acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: empirical comparison against external baselines; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation, not a derivation. The central claim—that DINOv2+LoRA with FedAvg reaches mAP@50 0.857 and F1 0.803 while transmitting 2.9M parameters—is obtained by running a fixed training protocol on a new dataset and comparing against external baselines (YOLO26, SAM, UltraSAM, UltraFedFM, DINOv2 variants). Hyperparameters (r=8, alpha_LoRA=16, lambda weights, 20 rounds, E=4) are set a priori and are not fitted to the reported test metrics. The 8.5x parameter reduction is a direct arithmetic consequence of LoRA's low-rank updates versus full fine-tuning, not a self-referential prediction. The authors cite several of their own prior papers (e.g., [10], [19], [28], [35], [45]), but these are background reviews, baseline pretraining sources, or prior FL applications; none is used to justify the headline comparison, and the better-performing variant uses natural-image DINOv2 base rather than the fetal-pretrained self-cited variant. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renamed empirical law is invoked. The small-sample concern about Client 3's 3 test patients affects the statistical reliability of the performance margin, but it is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no novel theoretical entities. The free parameters are standard manually chosen training hyperparameters. The main assumptions are domain-transfer assumptions about DINOv2 and LoRA, plus the standard FL convergence assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • LoRA rank r and scaling alpha_LoRA = r=8, alpha=16
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 3.3; controls adapter capacity and update scale. No ablation or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Detection loss weights = lambda_box=7.5, lambda_cls=0.5, lambda_dfl=1.5
    Set in Sec. 3.3 following YOLOv8 defaults; no tuning or sensitivity analysis.
  • Training schedule hyperparameters = 20 rounds, E=4, lr=1e-4, weight decay 5e-4, batch 64
    Manual configuration in Sec. 3.3; effects on federated convergence are not analyzed.
  • Evaluation thresholds = IoU=0.6, confidence=1e-3
    Metric thresholds in Sec. 3.3; mAP@50 and F1 depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DINOv2 features pretrained on natural images transfer to fetal ultrasound, including CC localization.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.1 with citation [32]; not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption LoRA low-rank adaptation is sufficient to adapt a frozen ViT to a detection task.
    Assumed in Eq. 2 and throughout; no comparison to other PEFT methods such as adapters or prompt tuning.
  • domain assumption Federated averaging (FedAvg) converges to a useful global model on non-IID client data for this task.
    Standard FL assumption relied on in Sec. 3.1; FedProx comparison partially tests heterogeneity robustness.
  • domain assumption A single-scale feature map reshaped from final-layer ViT tokens retains sufficient spatial information for object localization.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1; the single-head vs multi-head comparison in Table 5 partially tests this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedCC: A Low-Resource Federated Adaptation of Foundation Models for Robust Corpus Callosum localization in Fetal Ultrasound Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4XVND6X

@misc{pith2026260718283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedCC: A Low-Resource Federated Adaptation of Foundation Models for Robust Corpus Callosum localization in Fetal Ultrasound Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4XVND6X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18283}
}
abstract

Accurate localization of the corpus callosum (CC) in fetal ultrasound (US) images is crucial for the early identification of neurodevelopmental abnormalities. However, this task remains highly challenging due to the intrinsic limitations of US imaging, including low contrast, speckle noise, and the considerable anatomical variability of the CC. We propose FedCC, a federated learning (FL)-based framework for CC localization in fetal US images, specifically designed for realistic multi-center and resource-constrained clinical settings without requiring data sharing. The framework integrates a frozen DINOv2 backbone with a lightweight YOLO-based detection head. To enable parameter-efficient adaptation, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) modules are incorporated, allowing only a small subset of parameters to be optimized and exchanged among clients. This strategy substantially reduces both computational and communication overhead, making the framework suitable for low-resource environments. The proposed approach was evaluated on a multi-center dataset comprising 10,970 ultrasound frames acquired from 58 pregnant women during routine neurosonographic examinations across three clinical sites using heterogeneous imaging devices. The proposed framework achieved strong performance in the federated setting. In particular, the combination of DINOv2 and LoRA under the FedAvg strategy achieved an average mAP@50 of 0.857 and an F1-score of 0.803, outperforming both full fine-tuning and encoder-freezing baselines. Notably, the proposed approach reduced the number of trainable parameters to 2.9M compared with 24.4M in full fine-tuning, corresponding to an approximately 8.5$\times$ reduction in communication cost. These findings represent a promising step toward scalable, privacy-preserving, and clinically deployable AI systems for fetal neurosonography.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Anatomical context and localisation target for corpus callosum detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed federated learning framework. Each client trains a local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the proposed architecture for corpus callosum localization in ul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative fetal ultrasound frames grouped by client, highlighting inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of corpus callosum localization across three federated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trainable parameter count across model families and adaptation strategies. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Zhang, H

    N. Zhang, H. Dong, P. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Guo, The value of obstetric ultrasound in screening fetal nervous system malformation, World Neurosurgery 138 (2020) 645–653

    2020

  2. [2]

    Paladini, G

    D. Paladini, G. Malinger, A. Monteagudo, G. Pilu, I. Timor Tritsch, A. Toi, et al., Sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system: guidelines for performing the ‘basic examination’and the ‘fetal neurosonogram’, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 29 (2007) 109– 116

    2007

  3. [3]

    X. Wang, C. Wang, W. Yang, Q. Yao, L. Zuo, Assessment of the de- velopment of the central nervous system in fetuses with fetal growth restriction, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 310 (2024) 2963– 2971

    2024

  4. [4]

    Lanzarone, E

    V. Lanzarone, E. Eixarch, A. Borrell, Fetal corpus callosum anomalies: A review of underlying genetic disorders and prenatal testing options, Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 44 (2025) 637–652

    2025

  5. [5]

    G. Pilu, Z. Alfirevic, Fetal central nervous system anomalies, Fetal Medicine (2016) 81

    2016

  6. [6]

    K. K. Marathu, F. Vahedifard, M. Kocak, X. Liu, J. O. Adepoju, R. M. Bowker, M.Supanich, R.M.Cosme-Cruz, S.Byrd, FetalMRIanalysisof corpus callosal abnormalities: Classification, and associated anomalies, Diagnostics 14 (2024) 430

    2024

  7. [7]

    Santo, F

    S. Santo, F. D’antonio, T. Homfray, P. Rich, G. Pilu, A. Bhide, B. Thi- laganathan, A. Papageorghiou, Counseling in fetal medicine: agenesis of the corpus callosum, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 40 (2012) 513–521

    2012

  8. [8]

    Egana-Ugrinovic, S

    G. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Savchev, C. Bazán-Arcos, B. Puerto, E. Grata- cos, M. Sanz-Cortes, Neurosonographic assessment of the corpus callo- sum as imaging biomarker of abnormal neurodevelopment in late-onset fetal growth restriction, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 37 (2015) 281–288. 29

    2015

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    L. Meng, D. Zhao, Z. Yang, B. Wang, Automatic display of fetal brain planes and automatic measurements of fetal brain parameters by trans- abdominal three-dimensional ultrasound, Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 48 (2020) 82–88

    2020

  2. [10]

    M. C. Fiorentino, F. P. Villani, M. Di Cosmo, E. Frontoni, S. Moccia, A review on deep-learning algorithms for fetal ultrasound-image analysis, Medical Image Analysis 83 (2023) 102629

    2023

  3. [11]

    H. R. Torres, P. Morais, B. Oliveira, C. Birdir, M. Rüdiger, J. C. Fon- seca, J. L. Vilaça, A review of image processing methods for fetal head and brain analysis in ultrasound images, Computer Methods and Pro- grams in Biomedicine 215 (2022) 106629

    2022

  4. [12]

    X. P. Burgos-Artizzu, D. Coronado-Gutiérrez, B. Valenzuela-Alcaraz, E. Bonet-Carne, E. Eixarch, F. Crispi, E. Gratacós, Evaluation of deep convolutional neural networks for automatic classification of common maternal fetal ultrasound planes, Scientific Reports 10 (2020) 10200

    2020

  5. [13]

    Q. Wang, J. Pei, J. Ouyang, Y. Chen, J. Pu, A. Humayun, D. Zhao, B. Liu, A method framework of automatic localization and quantitative segmentation for the cavum septum pellucidum complex and the cere- bellar vermis in fetal brain ultrasound images, Quantitative Imaging in Med...

    2023

  6. [14]

    J. Jiao, J. Zhou, X. Li, M. Xia, Y. Huang, L. Huang, N. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Zhou, Y. Wang, et al., Usfm: A universal ultrasound foundation model generalized to tasks and organs towards label efficient image anal- ysis, Medical Image Analysis 96 (2024) 103202

    2024

  7. [15]

    W. Khan, S. Leem, K. B. See, J. K. Wong, S. Zhang, R. Fang, A comprehensive survey of foundation models in medicine, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Meyer, A

    A. Meyer, A. Murali, F. Zarin, D. Mutter, N. Padoy, Ultrasam: a foundation model for ultrasound using large open-access segmentation datasets, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (2025) 1–10. 30

    2025

  9. [17]

    C. Ma, J. Jiao, S. Liang, J. Fu, Q. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Guo, TinyUSFM: Towards compact and efficient ultrasound foundation mod- els, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19239 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Z. Chen, L. Zhao, X. Chen, Y. Liu, B. Maihe, J. S. Dun- can, T. Chen, S. Sun, Adapting vision foundation models for real-time ultrasound image segmentation, in: International Conference on Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer, 202...

    2025

  11. [19]

    M. C. Fiorentino, L. Federici, A. P. La Camera, E. G. Caiani, Adapt or specialize? a comprehensive evaluation of adapted sam versus task- specific cnns for fetal abdominal segmentation, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (2025) 109178

    2025

  12. [20]

    M. J. Sheller, B. Edwards, G. A. Reina, J. Martin, S. Pati, A. Kotrot- sou, M. Milchenko, W. Xu, D. Marcus, R. R. Colen, S. Bakas, Fed- erated learning in medicine: facilitating multi-institutional collabora- tions without sharing patient data, Scientific Reports 10 (2020) 125...

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    J. Bian, Y. Peng, L. Wang, Y. Huang, J. Xu, A survey on parameter- efficient fine-tuning for foundation models in federated learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21099 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), Official Journal of the European Union,

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sendra-Balcells, V

    C. Sendra-Balcells, V. M. Campello, J. Torrents-Barrena, Y. A. Ahmed, M. Elattar, B. Ohene-Botwe, P. Nyangulu, W. Stones, M. Ammar, L. N. Benamer, et al., Generalisability of fetal ultrasound deep learning mod- els to low-resource imaging settings in five african countries, Sc...

    2023

  16. [24]

    E. J. Hu, Y. Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, et al., LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, Iclr 1 (2022) 3. 31

    2022

  17. [25]

    Huang, A

    R. Huang, A. Namburete, A. Noble, Learning to segment key clinical anatomical structures in fetal neurosonography informed by a region- based descriptor, Journal of Medical Imaging 5 (2018) 014007–014007

    2018

  18. [26]

    Q. Wang, D. Zhao, H. Ma, B. Liu, Fb-zwunet: A deep learning network for corpus callosum segmentation in fetal brain ultrasound images for prenatal diagnostics, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 104 (2025) 107499

    2025

  19. [27]

    M. Li, S. Liu, Z. Zhang, Q. Li, X. Xu, Deep learning-based automated detection of fetal corpus callosum abnormalities in prenatal ultrasound, Frontiers in Pediatrics 14 (2026) 1774586

    2026

  20. [28]

    M. C. Fiorentino, G. Migliorelli, F. P. Villani, E. Frontoni, S. Moccia, Contrastive prototype federated learning against noisy labels in fetal standard plane detection, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 20 (2025) 1431–1439

    2025

  21. [29]

    A. A. Judi, P. Suresh, T. A. B. Raj, FB-UNet++: federated biomet- ric unet++ model for segmentation and classification network of fetal anomaly detection in prenatal care, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 112 (2026) 108706

    2026

  22. [30]

    J. Han, H. Wang, Y. Feng, Q. Yang, J. Li, H. Zhang, Y. He, J. Liu, T. Nakamura, Y. Cao, et al., Federated learning for prenatal detection of interrupted aortic arch using fetal ultrasound imaging, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 119 (2026) 109795

    2026

  23. [31]

    Oquab, T

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. Vo, M. Szafraniec, V. Khali- dov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, et al., DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ambsdorf, A

    J. Ambsdorf, A. Munk, S. Llambias, A. N. Christensen, K. Mikolaj, R. Balestriero, M. G. Tolsgaard, A. Feragen, M. Nielsen, General meth- odsmakegreatdomain-specificfoundationmodels: Acase-studyonfetal ultrasound, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Comp...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Sohan, T

    M. Sohan, T. Sai Ram, C. V. Rami Reddy, A review on YOLOv8 and its advancements, in: International Conference on Data Intelligence and Cognitive Informatics, Springer, 2024, pp. 529–545

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jocher, A

    G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, J. Qiu, Ultralytics YOLO, 2023. URL: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2023

  27. [35]

    Conti, R

    E. Conti, R. Rosati, L. Federici, A. Mancini, M. C. Fiorentin, Chal- lenging DINOv3 foundation model under low inter-class variability: A case study on fetal brain ultrasound, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01915 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Z. Zhou, Y. Lu, J. Bai, V. M. Campello, F. Feng, K. Lekadir, Segment anything model for fetal head-pubic symphysis segmentation in intra- partum ultrasound image analysis, Expert Systems with Applications 263 (2025) 125699

    2025

  29. [37]

    M. H. Le, K. D. Pham, T. Vinh, T.-H. Nguyen, H. H. Huynh, K. T. Le, A. M.Vu, H.N.Luong, U. Bagci, M. Xu, etal., VISCERA-SAM:Adapt- ing segment anything for multi-visceral fetal abdominal ultrasound seg- mentation, in: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Jiang, Y

    T. Jiang, Y. Li, W. Xing, R. Cao, M. Yu, Y. Zhu, Y. Chen, B. Li, D. Ta, UltraSAM: A foundational medical ultrasound segmentation model with limited training data, Expert Systems with Applications (2025) 130223

    2025

  31. [39]

    Jiang, C.-M

    Y. Jiang, C.-M. Feng, J. Ren, J. Wei, Z. Zhang, Y. Hu, Y. Liu, R. Sun, X. Tang, J. Du, et al., From pretraining to privacy: federated ultrasound foundation model with self-supervised learning, npj Digital Medicine 8 (2025) 714

    2025

  32. [40]

    McMahan, E

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

    2017

  33. [41]

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, V. Smith, Fed- erated optimization in heterogeneous networks, Proceedings of Machine learning and Systems 2 (2020) 429–450. 33

    2020

  34. [42]

    Sapkota, R

    R. Sapkota, R. H. Cheppally, A. Sharda, M. Karkee, Yolo26: key ar- chitectural enhancements and performance benchmarking for real-time object detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25164 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Z. Zou, K. Chen, Z. Shi, Y. Guo, J. Ye, Object detection in 20 years: A survey, Proceedings of the IEEE 111 (2023) 257–276

    2023

  36. [44]

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, A. T. Suresh, Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning, in: In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2020, pp. 5132– 5143

    2020

  37. [45]

    M. C. Fiorentino, S. Moccia, M. D. Cosmo, E. Frontoni, B. Giovanola, S. Tiribelli, Uncovering ethical biases in publicly available fetal ultra- sound datasets, npj Digital Medicine 8 (2025) 355

    2025

  38. [46]

    J. H. Cha, J.-S. Lim, Y. H. Jang, J. K. Hwang, J. Y. Na, J.-M. Lee, H. J. Lee, J.-H. Ahn, Altered microstructure of the splenium of corpus callosum is associated with neurodevelopmental impairment in preterm infants with necrotizing enterocolitis, Italian Journal of Pediatrics...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Lubián-Gutiérrez, I

    M. Lubián-Gutiérrez, I. Benavente-Fernández, Y. Marín-Almagro, N. Jiménez-Luque, A. Zuazo-Ojeda, Y. Sánchez-Sandoval, S. P. Lubián- López, Corpus callosum long-term biometry in very preterm children related to cognitive and motor outcomes, Pediatric Research 96 (2024) 409–417. 34

    2024

  40. [2024]

    URL:https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj, ac- cessed: 2026-05-13

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.