Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning for improved Convolutional Baseline for Brain Tumor Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa Adult Glioma Dataset

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning only small convolutional adapters on a frozen brain-tumor segmentation backbone lifts mean Dice on a shifted African MRI dataset from 0.72 to 0.80, matching full fine-tuning at less than half the training time.

desk verdict Useful, honest PEFT-for-segmentation application whose headline Dice gain is selection-optimized on the validation set; the compute savings and code are real, but the evidence needs a proper test set before the 0.80 number can be cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14100 v1 pith:FNIVO4A5 submitted 2024-12-18 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Bijay Adhikari , Pratibha Kulung , Jakesh Bohaju , Laxmi Kanta Poudel , Confidence Raymond , Dong Zhang , Udunna C Anazodo , Bishesh Khanal
show 1 more author
Mahesh Shakya
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords parameter-efficientfine-tuningmedicalimagesegmentationbraintumordomainshiftconvolutionaladaptersBraTS-Africalow-resourcesettingsMedNeXt
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

Brain-tumor segmentation models trained on large Western MRI datasets lose about 20 points of Dice when applied to the smaller, lower-resolution BraTS-Africa dataset from Sub-Saharan Africa. This paper tries to fix that transfer gap cheaply by freezing a pretrained MedNeXt-S model and training only small convolutional adapter blocks on the 60-case African training set. The claim is that adapter-based fine-tuning reaches mean Dice 0.80 on the 35-case validation set, beating the 0.72 of training only on the African data (P=0.000116) and matching full fine-tuning's 0.77 (P=0.63) while needing about 4 hours instead of 10. If correct, this gives low-resource sites a recipe: keep one strong pretrained backbone and adapt it per site with a few million trainable parameters.

What carries the argument

The key object is the ConvNeXt-Adapter, a small trainable module inserted sequentially inside each frozen MedNeXt superblock. It applies layer normalization, a 3×3×3 depthwise convolution, a channel-expansion convolution, GELU activation, and a pointwise projection back to the original channel width, then adds the result to the frozen feature stream via a residual skip. Its job is to rewrite the pretrained features just enough to fit the BraTS-Africa distribution while the backbone stays untouched; only 11.2% additional parameters (34.99 million total) are trained.

What would settle it

Run PEFT, full fine-tuning, and target-only training each with at least five random seeds on the same BraTS-Africa 60/35 split, and evaluate on a held-out test set never used to choose the adapter design; if full fine-tuning matches or beats PEFT on average across seeds, the central claim of superior average performance weakens to a claim about equal performance at lower compute.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that parameter-efficient fine-tuning with convolutional adapters enables a lightweight convolutional segmenter to cross a severe MRI domain shift. Pre-training MedNeXt-S on BraTS-2021 yields 0.50 mean Dice on BraTS-Africa without any adaptation, versus 0.70 in-domain. Inserting the proposed ConvNeXt-Adapter blocks—layer norm, 3×3×3 depthwise convolution, channel expansion, GELU, and pointwise projection, added to the frozen feature stream through a residual skip—and training only those adapters on the 60-case BraTS-Africa training set raises validation mean Dice to 0.80. That is 0.08 higher than training only on BraTS-Africa (P=0.000116) and statistically indistinguishable from full fine-tuning (0.77, P=0.63), at roughly 4 hours versus 10 hours of training. The authors attribute the edge over full fine-tuning to the small trainable parameter count preventing overfitting on the small target set, and they report the adapted model oversegments, with specificity 0.99 against sensitivity 0.75.

Load-bearing premise

The 35-case BraTS-Africa validation set is treated as the measure of generalization, and the sequential adapter placement was chosen on that same set, so the reported advantage over full fine-tuning may be optimistic; each result also comes from a single training run.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A network pretrained on BraTS-2021 alone drops from 0.70 to 0.50 mean Dice when evaluated on BraTS-Africa, so cross-population deployment without adaptation is unsafe.
  • Adapter-based fine-tuning on the small BraTS-Africa training set recovers and exceeds target-only training, improving mean Dice from 0.72 to 0.80 with P=0.000116.
  • PEFT performance is statistically comparable to full fine-tuning (P=0.63) while cutting training time from about 10 hours to about 4 hours.
  • Adapter placement matters: sequential insertion scores 0.80 mean Dice, while parallel insertion scores 0.78.
  • The resulting model oversegments rather than undersegments, with specificity 0.99 and sensitivity 0.75 on whole tumor, which should inform how its output is used clinically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A frozen backbone plus per-site adapters implies a practical multi-site deployment pattern: one shared pretrained model with small site-specific adapter weights, a pattern the paper does not itself propose.
  • The sequential-over-parallel gap is a testable architectural hypothesis: adapters that modulate the main feature path in place may align features more strongly than a parallel branch; a controlled study varying insertion points could verify it.
  • Because the adapter configuration was chosen on the same 35-case validation set it is evaluated on, the 0.80 figure is likely optimistic; a held-out test set or cross-validation would give a fairer estimate.
  • The high-specificity/low-sensitivity profile suggests that a recall-weighted or boundary-aware loss could push sensitivity up without full retraining, since only the adapter layers would need retuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) approach for brain tumor segmentation on the BraTS-Africa dataset, inserting convolutional adapter blocks into a MedNeXt-S backbone pre-trained on BraTS-2021. The authors report that PEFT reaches 0.80 mean Dice on the 35-case BraTS-Africa validation set, compared with 0.72 for a MedNeXt-S trained from scratch on BraTS-Africa (P=0.000116) and 0.77 for full fine-tuning (P=0.63), while reducing training time from about 10 to about 4 hours. The manuscript also documents the domain-shift drop from BraTS-2021 to BraTS-Africa (0.70 to 0.50 Dice) and disaggregates sensitivity/specificity. Source code is provided.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant and under-served problem: adapting models to a low-resource, domain-shifted African glioma dataset. The central empirical design is reasonable, the compute-savings claim is concrete and useful, and the public code release supports reproducibility. If the claims survive a properly held-out evaluation with multiple seeds, the reported 0.80 Dice result would be a solid practical benchmark for PEFT in this setting. However, the current manuscript does not yet establish that point because the primary numbers are selected and single-run, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5 and Supplementary Table S5] The choice of sequential over parallel adapters was made by comparing 0.80 versus 0.78 average Dice on the same 35-case validation set used for all reported metrics. Consequently, the reported 0.80 mean Dice and the P=0.000116 comparison to the from-scratch baseline are post-selection estimates: the selection step on the evaluation metric inflates the mean and invalidates the naive significance test. The authors should evaluate the final model on the BraTS-Africa challenge test set, or alternatively perform nested cross-validation on the 60 training cases, and report the unselected comparison showing both adapter placements.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] Every method is trained once, so no measure of training stochasticity is presented. With n=35 cases and reported Dice standard deviations of about 0.19, the standard error of the mean is roughly 0.03, which is comparable to the 0.03 gap between PEFT and full fine-tuning. The authors should report results over multiple seeds (at least three, ideally five) with confidence intervals, and use an equivalence test such as TOST if they want to claim that PEFT is comparable to full fine-tuning; P=0.63 is not evidence of equivalence.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 4] The baseline labeled "Without Fine-Tuning" is confusing and possibly misnamed. The text says the comparison is to "the baseline MedNeXt model trained only on the BraTS-Africa dataset," which is a from-scratch training, not a pre-trained model without fine-tuning. This ambiguity is load-bearing because the headline comparison "0.80 vs 0.72" mixes up the notion of fine-tuning. Please rename the baseline (e.g., "from-scratch") and clarify how it relates to Table 1's BraTS-Africa evaluation of the BraTS-2021-trained model, which gives 0.50.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4] The statement that "full finetuning results is much lesser variance in performance" is contradicted by Table 3, where full fine-tuning has Avg Dice standard deviation 0.21 and PEFT has 0.19. Either correct the claim or provide the boxplot statistics that support it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The paper switches between "MedNeXT" and "MedNeXt"; please standardize the spelling throughout.
  2. [Section 3.3] The preprocessing section lists steps but omits concrete training hyperparameters such as optimizer, learning rate, epochs, batch size, loss function, and number of training steps. Including these in the main text or supplement would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 4] The statistical tests used to obtain P=0.000116 and P=0.63 are not described; please specify the test (e.g., paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank) and whether it was one- or two-sided.
  4. [Table 4] The phrase "lower sensitivity (0.75)" is ambiguous: 0.75 is higher than the full fine-tuning WT sensitivity of 0.68 and the without-fine-tuning value of 0.36. Rephrase to "lower than its own specificity" or specify the intended comparison.
  5. [Table 3] The caption says "Full Fine-Tuning" and "With PEFT Fine-Tuning"; note in the caption that full fine-tuning is initialized from BraTS-2021 weights, as stated in the text, to avoid confusion.
  6. [References] Reference [24] has overlapping authors with the current manuscript; please ensure that the citation does not imply prior independent validation of the exact adapter block if that is not the case.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Empirical PEFT comparison is largely self-contained; one validation-set model-selection step introduces mild selection bias but no derivation-level circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 (Proposed Architecture with Adapter) and Supplementary Table S5]
    "We experimented with two variations of adapter placement: Sequential and Parallel, as shown in figure 2. However, Parallel placement of adapter resulted in lower performance (Average Dice of 0.78 as compared to 0.80 of Sequential Adapter). Therefore, the metrics mentioned in the Results and Discussion section are from the Sequential adapter."

    The adapter placement (sequential vs parallel) is selected by comparing Dice scores on the BraTS-Africa validation set, and the same validation set is then used to report the headline PEFT Dice (0.80) and the statistical comparison against baselines. Because the selection criterion is the evaluation metric and the evaluation set is not held out from the model-selection procedure, the reported 0.80 is a selection-optimized estimate rather than an unbiased estimate on unseen data. This is a statistical selection loop rather than a definitional reduction, so it is partial circularity; the core comparison still depends on measured validation Dice.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical evaluation: PEFT with a ConvNeXt-style adapter reaches mean Dice 0.80 on the BraTS-Africa validation set versus 0.72 for a from-scratch BraTS-Africa-trained MedNeXt-S and 0.77 for full fine-tuning. These numbers are measured, not derived from an assumed conclusion, and the method is defined independently of the target result. The only notable circularity-adjacent issue is in Section 3.5: the sequential adapter variant was chosen because it scored 0.80 on the same 35-case validation set used to report all results, with a single run per method and no separate test set. This inflates the reported gain and invalidates the naive P-value, but it does not make the result true by construction, and the paper's contribution (an adapter-based PEFT recipe for MedNeXt) does not reduce to its inputs. Reference [24] (VLSM-Adapter) is co-authored by one of the present authors, but it is cited only as a prior adapter formulation and is not load-bearing for the empirical conclusion. No self-definitional, renamed-known-result, or imported-uniqueness circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The ConvNeXt-Adapter is an architectural module, not an entity with independent evidence. Key free parameters are training hyperparameters and adapter design choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Adapter expansion ratio
    The adapter includes an expansion layer (EL) but its width or expansion ratio is not specified in the paper; this is a hand-chosen architectural hyperparameter.
  • Adapter placement = sequential (vs parallel)
    The sequential placement was chosen because it gave higher validation Dice (0.80 vs 0.78); this selection uses the same validation set as the reported results.
  • Training hyperparameters (LR, epochs, batch size)
    Not reported in the paper; these affect all reported dice scores.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption BraTS-Africa validation set (35 cases) is representative of the target population
    The paper draws conclusions about generalization from a single small validation set; variability is high (std dev around 0.2 for Dice).
  • domain assumption Preprocessing (resize to 128^3, z-normalization) preserves tumor segmentation-relevant information
    Downsampling from 255^3 to 128^3 may lose fine detail, yet all methods use the same preprocessing, so relative comparisons hold.
  • ad hoc to paper The adapter design (depthwise conv + expansion + pointwise conv) is an effective PEFT module
    No theoretical or empirical ablation justifies this specific design over other adapters; it is inspired by MedNeXt blocks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning for improved Convolutional Baseline for Brain Tumor Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa Adult Glioma Dataset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNIVO4A5

@misc{pith2026241214100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning for improved Convolutional Baseline for Brain Tumor Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa Adult Glioma Dataset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNIVO4A5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14100}
}
read the original abstract

Automating brain tumor segmentation using deep learning methods is an ongoing challenge in medical imaging. Multiple lingering issues exist including domain-shift and applications in low-resource settings which brings a unique set of challenges including scarcity of data. As a step towards solving these specific problems, we propose Convolutional adapter-inspired Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning (PEFT) of MedNeXt architecture. To validate our idea, we show our method performs comparable to full fine-tuning with the added benefit of reduced training compute using BraTS-2021 as pre-training dataset and BraTS-Africa as the fine-tuning dataset. BraTS-Africa consists of a small dataset (60 train / 35 validation) from the Sub-Saharan African population with marked shift in the MRI quality compared to BraTS-2021 (1251 train samples). We first show that models trained on BraTS-2021 dataset do not generalize well to BraTS-Africa as shown by 20% reduction in mean dice on BraTS-Africa validation samples. Then, we show that PEFT can leverage both the BraTS-2021 and BraTS-Africa dataset to obtain mean dice of 0.8 compared to 0.72 when trained only on BraTS-Africa. Finally, We show that PEFT (0.80 mean dice) results in comparable performance to full fine-tuning (0.77 mean dice) which may show PEFT to be better on average but the boxplots show that full finetuning results is much lesser variance in performance. Nevertheless, on disaggregation of the dice metrics, we find that the model has tendency to oversegment as shown by high specificity (0.99) compared to relatively low sensitivity(0.75). The source code is available at https://github.com/CAMERA-MRI/SPARK2024/tree/main/PEFT_MedNeXt

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Brain image slices of a representative case from the BraTS Africa dataset with the four MRI modalities and manual annotated subregions (Mask), representing brain tumor sub-regions: Left to Right; T1-contrast-enhanced (T1c), pre-contrast T1- weighted (T1w), FLAIR, T2-weighted (T2w), and Mask 1. Conversion to Canonical Orientation: Since the dataset combines two sets of MRI scans in various orientations, all images ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: ConvNeXt-Adapter. Right: Different forms of Adapter placement within the MedNeXT Superblock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Conv-Adapter Inspired MedNext Segmentation Model Adapter Architecture We experimented with two variations of adapter placement: Sequential and Parallel, as shown in figure 2. However, Parallel placement of adapter resulted in lower performance (Average Dice of 0.78 as compared to 0.80 of Sequential Adapter). Therefore, the metrics mentioned in the Results and Discussion section are from the Sequential adapter. For r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Boxplot comparison of segmentation methods: without fine-tuning, full fine￾tuning, and PEFT, using Average Dice (left) and Average HD95 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of Predicted and Ground Segmentations with and without finetuning. 6 Acknowledgement The authors thank Sprint AI Training for African Medical Imaging Knowledge Translation (SPARK) Academy in Deep Learning and Medical Imaging 2024 Team for helping buil…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of Predicted and Ground Segmentations with and without finetuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of Predicted and Ground Segmentations with and without finetuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

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

    Chen, H., Tao, R., Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ye, W., Wang, J., Hu, G., Savvides, M.: Conv-adapter: Exploring parameter efficient transfer learning for convnets. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1551–1561 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Scientific reports10(1), 11622 (2020)

    Poon, M.T., Sudlow, C.L., Figueroa, J.D., Brennan, P.M.: Longer-term (geq 2 years) survival in patients with glioblastoma in population-based studies pre-and post-2005: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific reports10(1), 11622 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    NMR in Biomedicine 36(3), e4846 (2023)

    Anazodo, U.C., Ng, J.J., Ehiogu, B., Obungoloch, J., Fatade, A., Mutsaerts, H.J., Secca, M.F., Diop, M., Opadele, A., Alexander, D.C., et al.: A framework for advancing sustainable magnetic resonance imaging access in africa. NMR in Biomedicine 36(3), e4846 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    IJS Global Health6(3), e136 (2023)

    Aderinto, N., Opeyemi, M.A., Opanike, J., Afolayan, O., Sakaiwa, N.: Navigating the challenges of neuro-oncology in africa: addressing diagnostic and treatment barriers in the region: a correspondence. IJS Global Health6(3), e136 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    The Lancet Neurology18(4), 376–393 (2019)

    Patel, A.P., Fisher, J.L., Nichols, E., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., Abraha, H.N., Agius, D., Alahdab, F., Alam, T., et al.: Global, regional, and national burden of brain and other cns cancer, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. The Lancet Neurology18(4), 376–393 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Diagnostics13(9), 1562 (2023)

    Mostafa, A.M., Zakariah, M., Aldakheel, E.A.: Brain tumor segmentation using deep learning on mri images. Diagnostics13(9), 1562 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Auto- matica 11(285-296), 23–27 (1975)

    Otsu, N., et al.: A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. Auto- matica 11(285-296), 23–27 (1975)

    1975

  8. [7]

    Introducing A Novel Method For Adaptive Thresholding In Brain Tumor Medical Image Segmentation

    Fayzi, A.: Introducing a novel method for adaptive thresholding in brain tumor medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14250 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Interna- tional journal of computer vision1(4), 321–331 (1988)

    Kass, M., Witkin, A., Terzopoulos, D.: Snakes: Active contour models. Interna- tional journal of computer vision1(4), 321–331 (1988)

    1988

  2. [9]

    Handbook of Biomedical Imaging: Methodologies and Clinical Research pp

    Bach Cuadra, M., Duay, V., Thiran, J.P.: Atlas-based segmentation. Handbook of Biomedical Imaging: Methodologies and Clinical Research pp. 221–244 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    Cancers 15(16), 4172 (2023)

    Abdusalomov, A.B., Mukhiddinov, M., Whangbo, T.K.: Brain tumor detection based on deep learning approaches and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancers 15(16), 4172 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18....

    2015

  5. [12]

    Studies in health technology and informatics305, 93–96 (2023)

    Zargari, S.A., Kia, Z.S., Nickfarjam, A.M., Hieber, D., Holl, F.: Brain tumor clas- sification and segmentation using dual-outputs for u-net architecture: O2u-net. Studies in health technology and informatics305, 93–96 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication11(4), 324–340 (2023)

    Kumar, E., Ajay, A., Vardhini, K., Vemu, R., Padmanabham, A.: Residual edge attention in u-net for brain tumour segmentation. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication11(4), 324–340 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Systems and Emergent Technologies (IC_ASET)

    Sahli, H., Slama, A.B., Sayadi, M.: Skin lesion segmentation based on modified u-net architecture. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Systems and Emergent Technologies (IC_ASET). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01401 (2023)

    He,S.,Bao,R.,Grant,P.E.,Ou,Y.:U-netmer:U-netmeetstransformerformedical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01401 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop

    Hatamizadeh, A., Nath, V., Tang, Y., Yang, D., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop. pp. 272–284. Springer (2021) 12 Adhikari, Kulung, Bohaju, Poudel, Shakya et al

    2021

  10. [17]

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

    Roy, S., Koehler, G., Ulrich, C., Baumgartner, M., Petersen, J., Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Maier-Hein, K.H.: Mednext: transformer-driven scaling of convnets for medi- cal image segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interve...

    2023

  11. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02852 (2024)

    Maani, F., Hashmi, A.U.R., Saeed, N., Yaqub, M.: On enhancing brain tumor segmentation across diverse populations with convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02852 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    ArXiv (2023)

    Adewole, M., Rudie, J.D., Gbdamosi, A., Toyobo, O., Raymond, C., Zhang, D., Omidiji, O., Akinola, R., Suwaid, M.A., Emegoakor, A., et al.: The brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2023: Glioma segmentation in sub-saharan africa patient population (brats-africa). ArXiv (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Expert systems with applications 230, 120534 (2023)

    Talukder, M.A., Islam, M.M., Uddin, M.A., Akhter, A., Pramanik, M.A.J., Aryal, S., Almoyad, M.A.A., Hasan, K.F., Moni, M.A.: An efficient deep learning model to categorize brain tumor using reconstruction and fine-tuning. Expert systems with applications 230, 120534 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Houlsby, N., Giurgiu, A., Jastrzebski, S., Morrone, B., De Laroussilhe, Q., Ges- mundo, A., Attariyan, M., Gelly, S.: Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 2790–2799. PMLR (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00247 (2020)

    Pfeiffer, J., Kamath, A., Rücklé, A., Cho, K., Gurevych, I.: Adapterfusion: Non- destructive task composition for transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00247 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06196 (2024)

    Dhakal, M., Adhikari, R., Thapaliya, S., Khanal, B.: Vlsm-adapter: Finetuning vision-language segmentation efficiently with lightweight blocks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06196 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    Baid, U., Ghodasara, S., Mohan, S., Bilello, M., Calabrese, E., Colak, E., Farahani, K., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Kitamura, F.C., Pati, S., et al.: The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classifica- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02...

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993–2024 (2014)

    Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al.: The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993–2024 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C.Y., Feichtenhofer, C., Darrell, T., Xie, S.: A convnet for the 2020s. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11976–11986 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

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

    Wu, Y., He, K.: Group normalization. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 3–19 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Roy, S., Kügler, D., Reuter, M.: Are 2.5 d approaches superior to 3d deep networks inwholebrainsegmentation?In:InternationalConferenceonMedicalImagingwith Deep Learning. pp. 988–1004. PMLR (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016)

    Hendrycks, D., Gimpel, K.: Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Karargyris, A., Umeton, R., Sheller, M.J., Aristizabal, A., George, J., Wuest, A., Pati, S., Kassem, H., Zenk, M., Baid, U., et al.: Federated benchmarking of medi- cal artificial intelligence with medperf. Nature machine intelligence5(7), 799–810 (2023) Parameter-efficient Fi...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.