Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Generative Style Transfer for MRI Image Segmentation: A Case of Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neural style transfer data augmentation, combined with fine-tuning a pretrained nnU-Net on SSA scans, converts previously empty tumor predictions on low-quality Sub-Saharan MRI into usable segmentations.

desk verdict A transparent challenge report with a plausible method combo, but the headline NST+fine-tuning claim rests on one anecdotal validation case and no ablation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04734 v1 pith:AXLFKVPK submitted 2025-01-07 eess.IV cs.AIcs.LGphysics.med-ph

Rancy Chepchirchir , Jill Sunday , Raymond Confidence , Dong Zhang , Talha Chaudhry , Udunna C. Anazodo , Kendi Muchungi , Yujing Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.LGphysics.med-ph
keywords BrainTumorSegmentationNeuralstyletransfernnU-NetSub-SaharanAfricaMRIdataaugmentationgliomadomainshift
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 argues that the performance gap between high-quality GLI and low-quality SSA MRI glioma segmentation can be closed, at least partially, by a two-part recipe: fine-tune a well-pretrained 2D full-resolution nnU-Net on the small SSA training set, and augment that set with neural style transfer images that re-render SSA scans with the appearance of high-quality GLI scans. It shows that one SSA validation case that previously produced an empty mask yields a proper tumor segmentation after this treatment. The motivation is clinical: lower-quality MRI in Sub-Saharan Africa should not make modern deep-learning segmentation tools unusable, and this work is a step toward tailoring such tools without large African datasets. Along the way it reports that adding 60 SSA training cases to the 1251 GLI cases does not significantly change cross-validated Dice scores, and that 2D and 3D full-resolution nnU-Net configurations perform comparably at 0.93 Dice after 300 epochs.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the pairing of neural style transfer (NST) with fine-tuning. NST separates an image into content and style: a pretrained VGG19 network extracts feature maps from a content image (the SSA scan) and a style image (a GLI scan), and optimization re-renders the content with the style by minimizing a content loss (feature-map differences) and a style loss (differences between Gram matrices of feature correlations). The generated stylized SSA images are appended to the original SSA training data, and the pretrained nnU-Net v2 2D full-resolution model is fine-tuned on this combined set. The nnU-Net component provides a self-configuring U-Net pipeline with deep supervision, and the 2D full-resolution configuration (patch size [192,160], 32 base features) is the one that carries the fine-tuning step that produces the reported SSA improvement.

What would settle it

Take the NST-generated images, have a radiologist or an automated registration tool check whether the tumor region in the stylized image still matches the original mask, or measure the Dice score of the original ground-truth mask warped onto the styled image. If the tumor edges shift, smear, or vanish in the stylized scans, the augmentation injects incorrect supervision and the reported improvement would not hold up on a larger SSA validation set. A second check: run the same fine-tuning recipe with a control augmentation (e.g., standard geometric or intensity augmentation) on the same SSA cases and compare SSA validation Dice; if the control matches the NST result, style transfer is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that neural style transfer (NST) can act as a data augmentation that makes a pretrained segmentation model generalize to a low-resource domain. Concretely, the authors take a low-quality SSA MRI as the content image, pair it with a high-quality GLI MRI as the style image, and use VGG19 feature statistics (style loss via Gram matrices, content loss via feature maps) to generate new training examples. They then fine-tune the best 2D full-resolution nnU-Net, pretrained on the combined GLI+SSA data, on the original SSA cases plus these stylized SSA cases. The result is improved SSA validation predictions, including a case where the baseline predicted an empty mask and the fine-tuned NST-augmented model produced a usable tumor mask. The paper frames this as the first application of NST to brain-tumor segmentation in a Sub-Saharan Africa context, and as evidence that domain-shift concerns can be mitigated by combining transfer learning with generative augmentation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole improvement depends on the assumption that the stylized images keep the tumor boundaries aligned with the original ground-truth masks, so the model learns anatomy rather than re-learning style artifacts; the paper does not verify this correspondence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The empty-mask failure mode on incomplete low-quality SSA scans is at least partially fixable without collecting more African MRI data: a pretrained model fine-tuned on NST-augmented SSA data can produce segmentations where the baseline produced none.
  • Adding a modest amount of domain-specific training data (60 SSA cases) to a large GLI dataset does not degrade cross-validated performance, supporting the practice of combining multi-institutional data even when image quality differs.
  • A 2D full-resolution nnU-Net is a viable and cheaper alternative to 3D full-resolution for this task, reaching the same 0.93 five-fold Dice at 300 epochs with shorter per-epoch training time, which matters for resource-constrained compute environments.
  • The NST augmentation pipeline can be reused with any high-quality reference MRI set: the SSA content images are paired against available high-quality GLI images, so the method scales as more high-quality data become available.
  • Fine-tuning on original plus stylized SSA data is the combination that yields the improvement, suggesting the two interventions—transfer learning and generative augmentation—compound rather than substitute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper leaves implicit: verify label fidelity after NST by computing mask agreement between the original SSA scan and its stylized counterpart; if boundaries drift, the augmentation would require either mask-warping or a perceptual loss that preserves structure.
  • The 'in-painting/contextualization' effect noted for incomplete scans suggests NST is supplying anatomical context from GLI images, which raises the question of whether the improvement is true segmentation or hallucinated plausible anatomy—an issue that becomes visible only with a larger SSA validation set.
  • The same two-step recipe (pretrain on abundant data, style-transfer augment the scarce target domain, fine-tune) could transfer to other MRI tasks and other underserved populations where high-quality reference data exist, e.g., stroke lesion segmentation in low-field MRI.
  • The comparable 2D/3D performance and the fine-tuning result together imply that the bottleneck in low-resource settings is not model capacity but data representativeness; the paper's approach targets exactly that bottleneck, so ensembling the 2D and 3D models (as the authors propose for future work) may push SSA performance further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses glioma segmentation for Sub-Saharan African (SSA) MRI data within the BraTS 2023 challenge framework. Using nnU-Net, the authors train 2D and 3D full-resolution models on GLI and GLI+SSA datasets, compare their five-fold cross-validation pseudo-Dice scores, examine domain shift, and propose a neural style transfer (NST) data augmentation combined with fine-tuning on SSA training data to improve SSA validation predictions. The abstract reports a five-fold cross-validation score of 0.93 for both 2D and 3D models trained for 300 epochs on GLI+SSA data, and the discussion claims that NST augmentation with fine-tuning significantly improves SSA validation results, as illustrated by a single validation case. The manuscript also reports no statistically significant domain shift between GLI and GLI+SSA training, based on paired t-tests across five epoch-level pseudo-Dice values.

Significance. If the claimed improvement from NST augmentation and fine-tuning were quantitatively established, the work would be useful for low-resource imaging settings, offering a potential training strategy to adapt models to lower-quality MRI. The paper uses public benchmark data, provides code, and addresses a clinically relevant problem. However, the central claim currently rests on a single anecdotal validation case with no Dice-score evaluation on the full SSA validation set and no ablation isolating the effect of NST from fine-tuning. The statistical tests for the domain-shift and model-comparison claims are underpowered, as they use five epoch-level averages with non-independent structure. The work is therefore a promising preliminary study but does not yet provide the evidence needed to support its headline conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Figure 4] The claim that NST augmentation with fine-tuning significantly improved SSA validation results is supported only by a single held-out case (BraTS-SSA-00192-000) where the prediction changed from an empty mask to a non-empty mask. No Dice similarity coefficient or other quantitative metric is reported for the full SSA validation set before and after the proposed pipeline, so the reader cannot assess whether the improvement generalizes or is an isolated anecdote.
  2. [§3.3, Methods 2.3] The proposed method is not evaluated with an ablation study: the pretrained 2D fullres nnU-Net is fine-tuned jointly on the original 60 SSA training cases and the NST-augmented SSA data, so any improvement over the pretrained model could be due entirely to fine-tuning on the original SSA cases. A controlled comparison of four conditions (no fine-tuning, fine-tuning only, NST augmentation only, and both) is necessary to attribute the observed improvement to the NST component.
  3. [§2.3] The NST procedure pairs an SSA content image with a GLI style image and re-renders the content, but the paper does not verify that the tumor boundaries in the generated image still correspond to the original SSA ground-truth masks. If style transfer distorts or shifts tumor anatomy, the augmented training data injects incorrect supervision. The authors should validate label preservation, for example by computing Dice scores between the segmentation of the NST-generated image and the original mask, or by using a segmentation-aware style transfer objective.
  4. [Tables 1–3, §3.1–3.2] The paired t-tests are computed on five epoch-level pseudo-Dice values, each of which is already an average across five folds. This procedure has an effective sample size of five, ignores the non-independence of folds, and yields low statistical power; the reported p-values (e.g., p=0.33 and p=0.22) therefore provide weak evidence for the 'no significant difference' conclusions about domain shift and 2D versus 3D performance. A more appropriate analysis would use per-case or per-fold Dice values with a mixed-effects model or a paired test on a sufficiently large number of independent validation cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The sentence 'nnU-Net version 2 was used given its ser-friendly development framework' contains a typo; it should be 'user-friendly'.
  2. [§3.2] The phrase 'leision-wise Dice Similarity Coefficients' contains a typo; it should be 'lesion-wise Dice Similarity Coefficients'.
  3. [§3.3, Appendix Figure 4] The in-text references to 'Figure 4 in the Appendix' are confusing because the figure is labeled simply 'Fig. 4' and appears in the appendix; moreover, the caption in the appendix says 'before (A) and after (B) neural style transfer data augmentation' but also notes 'after fine-tuning on SSA training data only', so the caption should clarify that the comparison is between the pretrained model and the NST-plus-fine-tuned model.
  4. [Table 1] The paired t-test results report a non-integer degrees of freedom (df=30.86), which is inconsistent with a standard paired t-test; the authors should specify the exact test used (e.g., Welch's t-test) and ensure the reporting is consistent.
  5. [§3.1] The manuscript states that four SSA cases were excluded as outliers for the Optimized U-Net baseline experiment, but the main nnU-Net experiments appear to use the full GLI+SSA dataset including those cases; this discrepancy should be clarified to avoid confusion about which models saw which data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical training/validation result, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is an empirical workflow: pretrain nnU-Net on GLI/GLI+SSA data, fine-tune on SSA and NST-augmented SSA data, and evaluate on held-out SSA validation cases. No equation defines the reported improvement in terms of the training objective or a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing result is imported from a self-citation. The NST method is taken from Gatys et al. [15], VGG19 from Simonyan and Zisserman [16], and nnU-Net from Isensee et al. [12], all external sources. The SSA dataset [1] has overlapping authors but is an externally organized BraTS-Africa challenge dataset, not an unverified self-citation used to justify the conclusion. I do flag a missing-support limitation, not a circularity: Section 3.3 and the Discussion state that 'The fusion of the NST data augmentation with subsequent fine-tuning targeted specifically at SSA cases demonstrated significant improvements in results for the SSA validation set (Figure 4B),' but the only evidence shown is one SSA validation case (BraTS-SSA-00192-000) transitioning from an empty mask to a non-empty mask, with no quantitative Dice scores and no ablation separating fine-tuning from NST augmentation. That is a substantial evidence gap and an uncontrolled comparison, but the validation outcome is not an input to the training procedure by construction, so the claim does not reduce to its inputs. Score 0 for circularity; the weakness is evidentiary, not circular.

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

The central claim rests on standard deep learning tools (nnU-Net, VGG19, NST) whose validity on MR images is assumed from prior literature, on the accuracy of the BraTS labels, and on the validity of the statistical tests used. The paper does not introduce new entities. The main unstated dependency is that the style transfer preserves the semantic content, including tumor masks, of the SSA images.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of training epochs = 2, 5, 10, 30, 300
    Chosen by hand for the comparison; the 300-epoch point is called 'best'. This is a schedule choice, not fitted to data, but it affects the reported Dice scores.
  • NST style and content weights = Not reported
    The style transfer result depends on the balance between style and content losses. The paper does not state these weights or the number of optimization iterations, yet the augmentation quality is central to the improvement claim.
  • Fine-tuning hyperparameters (learning rate, epochs) = Not reported
    The fine-tuning step is a core part of the proposed method, but the paper gives no learning rate or epoch count for it.
  • Number of NST-augmented samples = Not reported
    The augmentation strategy pairs each SSA image with a random GLI style image; the paper does not state how many augmented samples were added to the 60-case training set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption nnU-Net, VGG19, and the neural style transfer algorithm of Gatys et al. are valid for this MRI task.
    Invoked in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 without architectural justification beyond prior literature.
  • domain assumption BraTS ground-truth segmentation masks are accurate and consistent across GLI and SSA centers.
    The training and evaluation rely entirely on the challenge-provided labels; any label noise would directly affect the reported Dice scores.
  • ad hoc to paper The paired t-test comparing epoch-level pseudo-Dice values is a valid significance test.
    The test uses 5 epoch averages as paired observations, but these are fold-averaged values, not independent samples. The paper treats this as a valid statistical comparison (Tables 2 and 3).
  • domain assumption The 300-epoch model checkpoint is representative of the 'best' model.
    The authors selected 'best' based on validation Dice after each epoch, but the reported pseudo-Dice values are cross-validation averages, and the selection procedure for the final checkpoint is not fully specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative Style Transfer for MRI Image Segmentation: A Case of Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXLFKVPK

@misc{pith2026250104734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative Style Transfer for MRI Image Segmentation: A Case of Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXLFKVPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04734}
}
read the original abstract

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the utilization of lower-quality Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology raises questions about the applicability of machine learning methods for clinical tasks. This study aims to provide a robust deep learning-based brain tumor segmentation (BraTS) method tailored for the SSA population using a threefold approach. Firstly, the impact of domain shift from the SSA training data on model efficacy was examined, revealing no significant effect. Secondly, a comparative analysis of 3D and 2D full-resolution models using the nnU-Net framework indicates similar performance of both the models trained for 300 epochs achieving a five-fold cross-validation score of 0.93. Lastly, addressing the performance gap observed in SSA validation as opposed to the relatively larger BraTS glioma (GLI) validation set, two strategies are proposed: fine-tuning SSA cases using the GLI+SSA best-pretrained 2D fullres model at 300 epochs, and introducing a novel neural style transfer-based data augmentation technique for the SSA cases. This investigation underscores the potential of enhancing brain tumor prediction within SSA's unique healthcare landscape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fine tuning small-scale SSA data with neural style transfer data augmentation techniques (B) with pretrained weights from large-scale GLI data via transfer learning (A). 3 Results 3.1 Baseline Model (Optimized U-Net) To establish a robust evaluation, we conducted experiments using the Optimized U-Net [14] on both the GLI and GLI+SSA datasets as part of our foundational benchmarking process. This comparison aimed to … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Excluded SSA training Cases A) 00051, B) 00097, C) 00041, & D) 00084 only for the optimized UNet baseline experiment [Predicted masks (top row), T2 (second row), T1ce (third row),T1 (fourth row), and T2-FLAIR (bottom row)]. This was not employed for the rest of the experiments. The predicted masks are shown with color coding as follows: background: purple, necrotic tumor core (NCR): blue, enhancing tumor (ET): yello… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predicted Masks for validation data BraTS-GLI-00001-000 (A), BraTS-GLI-00001-001 (B), BraTS-GLI-00013- 000 (C), and BraTS-GLI-00013-001 (D), [T1 (top row), T2 (bottom row)] cases using the well-performing best 2D fullres nnUNet model without fine-tuning. The predicted masks (bottom row) are shown with color coding as follows: background: purple, necrotic tumor core (NCR): blue, enhancing tumor (ET): yellow, peritumo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of Neural style transfer results between the high-resolution GLI MRI images (style image) and the low-resolution SSA MRI images (content image) via one-to-one random pairing. This was used a data augmentation approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tumor segmentation improvement for SSA validation case BraTS-SSA-00192-000 before (A) and after (B) neural style transfer data augmentation. [T1 (bottom row), T2(middle row)]. This was also after fine-tuning on SSA training data only from the best GLI pretrained model …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2023: Glioma segmentation in sub-saharan africa patient population (brats-africa)

    Maruf Adewole, Jeffrey D Rudie, Anu Gbadamosi, Oluyemisi Toyobo, Confidence Raymond, Dong Zhang, Olubukola Omidiji, Rachel Akinola, Mohammad Abba Suwaid, Adaobi Emegoakor, et al. The brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2023: Glioma segmentation in sub-saharan africa patient population (brats-africa). arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19369, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    A survey of mri-based brain tumor segmentation methods

    Jin Liu, Min Li, Jianxin Wang, Fangxiang Wu, Tianming Liu, and Yi Pan. A survey of mri-based brain tumor segmentation methods. Tsinghua science and technology, 19(6):578–595, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Brain tumor segmentation using an ensemble of 3d u-nets and overall survival prediction using radiomic features.Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 14:25, 2020

    Xue Feng, Nicholas J Tustison, Sohil H Patel, and Craig H Meyer. Brain tumor segmentation using an ensemble of 3d u-nets and overall survival prediction using radiomic features.Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 14:25, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    A framework for advancing sustainable magnetic resonance imaging access in africa.NMR in Biomedicine, 36(3):e4846, 2023

    Udunna C Anazodo, Jinggang J Ng, Boaz Ehiogu, Johnes Obungoloch, Abiodun Fatade, Henk JMM Mutsaerts, Mario Forjaz Secca, Mamadou Diop, Abayomi Opadele, Daniel C Alexander, et al. A framework for advancing sustainable magnetic resonance imaging access in africa.NMR in Biomedicine, 36(3):e4846, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Stroke lesion segmentation from low-quality and few-shot mris via similarity-weighted self-ensembling framework

    Dong Zhang, Raymond Confidence, and Udunna Anazodo. Stroke lesion segmentation from low-quality and few-shot mris via similarity-weighted self-ensembling framework. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 87–96. Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Deep learning for low-field to high-field mr: image quality transfer with probabilistic decimation simulator

    Hongxiang Lin, Matteo Figini, Ryutaro Tanno, Stefano B Blumberg, Enrico Kaden, Godwin Ogbole, Biobele J Brown, Felice D’Arco, David W Carmichael, Ikeoluwa Lagunju, et al. Deep learning for low-field to high-field mr: image quality transfer with probabilistic decimation simulator. InMachine Learning for Medical Image Reconstruction: Second International Wo...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Improving Image Quality In Low-Field MRI With Deep Learning.International Conference on Information Photonics, September 2021

    Armando Garcia Hernandez, Pierre Fau, Stanislas Rapacchi, Julien Wojak, Hugues Mailleux, Mohamed Benkreira, and Mouloud Adel. Improving Image Quality In Low-Field MRI With Deep Learning.International Conference on Information Photonics, September 2021. MAG ID: 3194828360 S2ID: f4c5924003ff3d30a66da9368dff95efadf48c77

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Neural Style Transfer Improves 3D Cardiovascular MR Image Segmentation on Inconsistent Data

    Chunwei Ma, Zhanghexuan Ji, and Mingchen Gao. Neural Style Transfer Improves 3D Cardiovascular MR Image Segmentation on Inconsistent Data, September 2019. Number: arXiv:1909.09716 arXiv:1909.09716 [cs]. 8 R. Chepchirchir and Sunday et al

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 16 references
  1. [9]

    Self-Supervised Generative Style Transfer for One-Shot Medical Image Segmentation

    Devavrat Tomar, Behzad Bozorgtabar, Manana Lortkipanidze Guillaume Vray, Mohammad Saeed Rad, and Jean-Philippe Thiran. Self-Supervised Generative Style Transfer for One-Shot Medical Image Segmentation. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Deep learning-based single image super-resolution for low-field mr brain images.Scientific Reports, 12(1):6362, 2022

    ML de Leeuw den Bouter, G Ippolito, TPA O’Reilly, RF Remis, MB van Gijzen, and AG Webb. Deep learning-based single image super-resolution for low-field mr brain images.Scientific Reports, 12(1):6362, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Generalisability of fetal ultrasound deep learning models to low-resource imaging settings in five african countries

    Carla Sendra-Balcells, Víctor M Campello, Jordina Torrents-Barrena, Yahya Ali Ahmed, Mustafa Elattar, Benard Ohene-Botwe, Pempho Nyangulu, William Stones, Mohammed Ammar, Lamya Nawal Benamer, et al. Generalisability of fetal ultrasound deep learning models to low-resource imag...

    2023

  4. [12]

    nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation.Nature Methods, 18(2):203–211, 2021

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon AA Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier-Hein. nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation.Nature Methods, 18(2):203–211, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Brats continuous evaluation sub-challenge 2021

    BraTS Challenge Organizers. Brats continuous evaluation sub-challenge 2021. https://www.synapse.org/ Synapse:syn27046444/files/, 2021. Accessed: 2024-08-19

    2021

  6. [14]

    Optimized u-net for brain tumor segmentation

    Michał Futrega, Alexandre Milesi, Michał Marcinkiewicz, and Pablo Ribalta. Optimized u-net for brain tumor segmentation. In International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pages 15–29. Springer, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Gatys, Alexander S

    Leon A. Gatys, Alexander S. Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. A Neural Algorithm of Artistic Style, September 2015. arXiv:1508.06576 [cs, q-bio]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015. Generative Style Transfer for SSA Glioma Segmentation 1 A Appendix Fig. 1: Excluded SSA training Cases...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.