Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

LM-Net: A Light-weight and Multi-scale Network for Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 3 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 LM-Net claims that a 5.4M-parameter hybrid CNN-transformer network can match or beat much heavier medical segmentation models on three public benchmarks.

desk verdict A competent lightweight segmentation architecture with honest ablations, but the three-dataset SOTA claim is overreached by an image-level LGG split and thin baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03838 v1 pith:GU6IKFFN submitted 2025-01-07 cs.CV

Zhenkun Lu , Chaoyin She , Wei Wang , Qinghua Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords MedicalimagesegmentationMulti-scalefeaturerepresentationLocalTransformerGlobalLightweightnetworkStructuralre-parameterizationU-shapedencoder-decoderHybridCNN-Transformer
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

LM-Net is a U-shaped medical image segmentation network designed to be accurate while staying small enough for clinical computer-aided diagnosis. The paper's central claim is that a deliberate two-level use of multi-scale features—parallel convolutions of different kernel sizes within each stage, plus feature-pyramid transformers across stages—lets one model beat heavier baselines on polyp, low-grade glioma, and breast ultrasound segmentation. The Local Feature Transformer (LFT) handles fine boundary texture with windowed self-attention; the Global Feature Transformer (GFT) captures whole-lesion context with global self-attention. On the three test sets the model reports 94.09%, 95.48%, and 90.96% mean Dice, respectively, at 4.66G FLOPs and 5.4M parameters, which the paper offers as evidence that a small hybrid CNN-transformer can match or exceed much larger models. The paper's argument is that local and global cues, plus same-level and cross-level scales, are complementary and together remove the usual over-segmentation, under-segmentation, and blurry-boundary failure modes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-branch module and the convolution algebra behind structural re-parameterization. Because convolution is homogeneous and additive ($F \otimes (\lambda K) = \lambda (F \otimes K)$ and $F \otimes K_1 + F \otimes K_2 = F \otimes (K_1 + K_2)$), the four parallel branches—each a convolution plus batch normalization—can be folded into one ordinary convolution at inference, so training gets multi-scale receptive fields while inference pays only single-convolution cost. On top of that, GFT feeds a five-level feature pyramid into a global self-attention transformer, and LFT feeds adjacent-stage local pyramids into windowed self-attention; together they give the decoder both global context and fine boundary detail. The feature-pyramid-plus-transformer design is what lets the network use multi-scale information across levels, not just within them.

What would settle it

Run a patient-stratified cross-validation on LGG—all slices of each patient confined to a single fold—and compare the resulting mDice with the reported 95.48%; a large drop would show the headline result depends on image-level splitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim the paper argues for is that the persistent failure modes of medical segmentation—over-segmentation, under-segmentation, and blurry boundaries—can be addressed by combining multi-scale representation at two levels of analysis, and that this can be done in a lightweight network. Within each encoder stage, a multi-branch module runs four depth-wise convolutions with kernels 3×1, 1×3, 3×3, and 5×5 in parallel, then merges them at inference through structural re-parameterization. Across stages, GFT builds a global feature pyramid from all encoder outputs and feeds it to global self-attention, while LFT builds local pyramids from adjacent stages and feeds them to windowed self-attention. The decoder then fuses local texture and global semantics layer by layer. The paper reports the consequence as state-of-the-art mean Dice of 94.09% on Kvasir-SEG, 95.48% on LGG, and 90.96% on breast ultrasound, using only 5.4M parameters and 4.66G FLOPs, and argues the gain comes not from extra capacity but from local-global and same-level/cross-level complementarity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 80/10/10 split of the LGG dataset, which is made per image rather than per patient, treats slices from the same tumor as independent, so training and test could share a patient's data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, a 5.4M-parameter model at 4.66G FLOPs can replace much heavier U-Net variants in computer-aided diagnosis pipelines where memory and latency matter.
  • The LFT/GFT pair implies that boundary quality, quantified by lower Hausdorff distance on Kvasir and ultrasound, does not require a larger or deeper network, only a decoder that receives both local textures and global semantics.
  • Because the multi-branch module re-parameterizes into a single convolution, the multi-scale benefit is nearly free at deployment, with inference cost staying close to that of one convolutional layer.
  • The reported faster convergence without ImageNet pre-training suggests the local-global hybrid can be trained from scratch on small medical datasets, lowering the barrier for new segmentation tasks.
  • State-of-the-art results across endoscopy, MRI, and ultrasound imply the architecture is not tuned to one imaging modality, making it a plausible general-purpose medical segmentation backbone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test a patient-stratified split on LGG; if one were run, the reported 95.48% mDice might shrink when slices of the same tumor are kept out of training.
  • Because LFT and GFT are described as plug-and-play, attaching them to other U-shaped encoders would show whether the gain comes from the transformers or from the specific multi-branch backbone.
  • The same convolution-additivity identity could be applied to other branch configurations, so the observed falloff with more branches is a finding about this model, not a general limit of re-parameterization.
  • A controlled input-resolution sweep could test whether the 5×5 branch matters at 256×256 or is an artifact of that choice.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LM-Net, a lightweight U-shaped architecture for medical image segmentation that combines a re-parameterizable multi-branch convolutional module with two transformer-based modules: LFT for local window self-attention and GFT for global self-attention over a feature pyramid. The authors claim state-of-the-art segmentation results on three public datasets (Kvasir-SEG, LGG, and breast ultrasound) while using only 4.66 GFLOPs and 5.4M parameters. The core technical idea is standard structural re-parameterization (Eqs. 3–9) to merge multiple convolutional branches into one inference-time convolution, and a local/global feature fusion scheme. Experiments compare against several U-Net variants and transformer hybrids, with ablations on the multi-branch kernels, GFT, and LFT.

Significance. If the reported results hold, LM-Net would be a practically useful lightweight medical segmentation model, especially for embedded computer-aided diagnosis. The manuscript's strengths include a correct and clearly explained re-parameterization identity, reproducibility-favorable details (training schedule, loss, augmentation), and relatively extensive ablation studies on the proposed modules. The efficiency claim (4.66 GFLOPs, 5.4M parameters) is specific and testable. However, the central 'state-of-the-art on three datasets' claim is currently under-supported because the LGG evaluation uses an image-level split with high risk of patient leakage, the Kvasir state-of-the-art comparison lacks error bars, and the LGG/BUSI baselines omit more recent segmentation methods. These issues are fixable but require additional experiments or a toned-down claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Table 2] The LGG dataset contains 3,929 images from only 110 patients, and the split described in Section 4.2 is an image-level 0.8:0.1:0.1 split with no patient-level grouping. This almost certainly places slices from the same patient in both training and test, which can inflate the reported 95.48% mDice via patient-specific memorization. Because the abstract's central claim is state-of-the-art results on three datasets, this is load-bearing. Please re-run the LGG experiments with a patient-disjoint split (e.g., split by patient ID) and report whether the numbers in Table 2 change.
  2. [Table 5] The Kvasir-SEG state-of-the-art comparison reports only a single run for FCBFormer, SSFormer-L, and ESFPNet-L, while LM-Net is reported with standard deviations from Table 1. The 0.24-point mDice margin over FCBFormer (94.09 vs. 93.85) may be within run-to-run noise. Please provide error bars for all methods (e.g., multiple seeds or a paired significance test) before claiming to surpass prior state of the art.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] The baseline set for LGG and breast ultrasound consists mostly of older architectures (U-Net variants, TransUNet, Swin-Unet, FCN, DeepLabv3+). More recent and directly competitive segmentation methods, such as nnU-Net, PraNet, or other lightweight transformer-CNN hybrids, are missing. Without such baselines, the 'state-of-the-art' claim on these two datasets is not well supported. Either add more recent baselines or explicitly limit the claim to the compared methods.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] There is a typo: 'Specifcally' should be 'Specifically'.
  2. [Equations (7)-(9)] The summation in Eq. (7) implicitly requires that the four branch kernels (3×1, 1×3, 3×3, 5×5) be zero-padded to a common spatial size before element-wise addition. Please state this alignment explicitly, as it is an essential implementation detail for the re-parameterization to be valid.
  3. [Table 4] The per-class results for the ultrasound dataset are presented in a very cramped single-row format that is hard to read. Please reformat into separate columns or a multi-row structure for clarity.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'the second and third stages contain of three layers' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'consist of three layers'.
  5. [Section 4.3] The text says that LM-Net 'achieves competitive results with FCBFormer and SSFormer' in one place but the abstract and introduction claim 'state-of-the-art results surpassing previous methods'. Please make the strength of the claim consistent throughout the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: LM-Net's claims rest on external benchmark evaluation and an algebraic re-parameterization identity, not on fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

LM-Net is an architecture paper evaluated against external public benchmarks; its central claims (state-of-the-art mDice/mIoU and low FLOPs/parameters) rest on reported test-set numbers, not on any fitted quantity being reused as a prediction. The structural re-parameterization derivation in Eqs. 1-9 is a direct algebraic identity: fusing batch-normalization scaling into convolution kernels and summing parallel kernels follows from convolution linearity and additivity, so it does not assume the performance result it is used to support. Ablations compare design variants on the same held-out protocol and do not rename fitted parameters as predictions. Self-citations in related work (e.g., Refs. 2, 15-18, 41-42, 45) are background references to prior medical-image applications and are not load-bearing for the proposed modules or for the benchmark results. The LGG patient-split concern is a data-protocol and leakage risk rather than circularity: it could empirically inflate benchmark numbers, but the reported test accuracy is not defined in terms of the training outputs or of any parameter fitted to the test set. No definitional, fitted-input, self-citation, or ansatz-smuggling circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are invented. The free parameters are architecture and training choices tuned on validation data; the axioms are the standard mathematical properties and evaluation assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • multi_branch_kernel_sizes = 3x1, 1x3, 3x3, 5x5
    Chosen by ablations in Table 6; alternative combinations reduce mDice. Affects the central performance claim.
  • number_of_branches = 4
    Authors state more branches degrade generalization (Section 5, Table 6). Manual architecture choice.
  • GFT_feature_pyramid_stride = S=16 (target H/16 x W/16)
    All encoder feature maps are downsampled to this resolution before global attention; not ablated or justified quantitatively.
  • LFT_local_attention_configuration = not reported
    Window size, number of heads, and dimension are not stated in Section 3.3; these choices affect boundary quality results.
  • training_schedule = lr=0.001, weight decay 1e-4, batch 32, 200 epochs
    Standard but manually chosen; baselines are also trained under this schedule, so any schedule bias affects relative comparisons.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Convolution is homogeneous and additive (F ⊗ (λK)=λ(F⊗K); F⊗K1+F⊗K2=F⊗(K1+K2))
    Used in Section 3.2 to justify fusing BN and branches into one inference convolution.
  • domain assumption Softmax attention formula Att=softmax(QK^T/sqrt(d))V captures useful global dependencies
    Inherited from Transformer literature and applied in GFT; no theoretical guarantee for medical segmentation.
  • domain assumption Image-level random split of LGG yields independent training and test samples
    Section 4.2 splits each dataset 0.8:0.1:0.1 without patient grouping; LGG images come from 110 patients, so this assumption is likely violated.
  • domain assumption Comparative baselines are trained fairly using their official code under the same pipeline
    Section 4.2 states all models use officially released code; the paper provides no per-model tuning or verification of optimality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LM-Net: A Light-weight and Multi-scale Network for Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GU6IKFFN

@misc{pith2026250103838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LM-Net: A Light-weight and Multi-scale Network for Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GU6IKFFN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03838}
}
read the original abstract

Current medical image segmentation approaches have limitations in deeply exploring multi-scale information and effectively combining local detail textures with global contextual semantic information. This results in over-segmentation, under-segmentation, and blurred segmentation boundaries. To tackle these challenges, we explore multi-scale feature representations from different perspectives, proposing a novel, lightweight, and multi-scale architecture (LM-Net) that integrates advantages of both Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) to enhance segmentation accuracy. LM-Net employs a lightweight multi-branch module to capture multi-scale features at the same level. Furthermore, we introduce two modules to concurrently capture local detail textures and global semantics with multi-scale features at different levels: the Local Feature Transformer (LFT) and Global Feature Transformer (GFT). The LFT integrates local window self-attention to capture local detail textures, while the GFT leverages global self-attention to capture global contextual semantics. By combining these modules, our model achieves complementarity between local and global representations, alleviating the problem of blurred segmentation boundaries in medical image segmentation. To evaluate the feasibility of LM-Net, extensive experiments have been conducted on three publicly available datasets with different modalities. Our proposed model achieves state-of-the-art results, surpassing previous methods, while only requiring 4.66G FLOPs and 5.4M parameters. These state-of-the-art results on three datasets with different modalities demonstrate the effectiveness and adaptability of our proposed LM-Net for various medical image segmentation tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of the LM-Net. LM-Net is a symmetric hierarchical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of multi-branch module. In the training phase, it contains four branches. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GFT module and LFT module. On the left is GFT and on the right is LFT, both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contrasting two perspectives on multi-scale features. The left figure illustrates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing the qualitative results of various models, we discovered that pure CNN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison results of LM-Net and other best-performing models. LM-Net can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualize the trend of mDice on the validation set across epochs for each model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U-net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Ger- many, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18 , pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    A review of deep learning segmentation methods for carotid artery ultrasound images

    Qinghua Huang, Haozhe Tian, Lizhi Jia, Ziming Li, and Zishu Zhou. A review of deep learning segmentation methods for carotid artery ultrasound images. Neurocomputing, page 126298, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Resunet++: An advanced architecture for medical image segmentation

    Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, Dag Johansen, Thomas De Lange, P ˚ al Halvorsen, and H ˚ avard D Johansen. Resunet++: An advanced architecture for medical image segmentation. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM), pages 225–2255. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation. In Deep Learn- ing in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8th International Workshop, ML-CDS 2018, Held in Conjunction with...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Unet 3+: A full-scale connected 20 unet for medical image segmentation

    Huimin Huang, Lanfen Lin, Ruofeng Tong, Hongjie Hu, Qiaowei Zhang, Yutaro Iwamoto, Xianhua Han, Yen-Wei Chen, and Jian Wu. Unet 3+: A full-scale connected 20 unet for medical image segmentation. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1055–1059. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Road extraction by deep residual u-net

    Zhengxin Zhang, Qingjie Liu, and Yunhong Wang. Road extraction by deep residual u-net. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , 15(5):749–753, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation

    ¨Ozg¨ un C ¸ i¸ cek, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Soeren S Lienkamp, Thomas Brox, and Olaf Ron- neberger. 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, October 17-21, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 19, pages 424–432. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation

    Fausto Milletari, Nassir Navab, and Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV) , pages 565–571. Ieee, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Automatic 3-d imaging and measurement of human spines with a robotic ultrasound system

    Cui Yang, Mingyao Jiang, Mianjie Chen, Maoqing Fu, Jianyi Li, and Qinghua Huang. Automatic 3-d imaging and measurement of human spines with a robotic ultrasound system. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 70:1–13, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 7132–7141, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Pyramid feature attention network for saliency detection

    Ting Zhao and Xiangqian Wu. Pyramid feature attention network for saliency detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3085–3094, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Cbam: Convolu- tional block attention module

    Sanghyun Woo, Jongchan Park, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. Cbam: Convolu- tional block attention module. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 3–19, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas

    Ozan Oktay, Jo Schlemper, Loic Le Folgoc, Matthew Lee, Mattias Heinrich, Kazu- nari Misawa, Kensaku Mori, Steven McDonagh, Nils Y Hammerla, Bernhard Kainz, et al. Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Segmentation information with atten- tion integration for classification of breast tumor in ultrasound image

    Yaozhong Luo, Qinghua Huang, and Xuelong Li. Segmentation information with atten- tion integration for classification of breast tumor in ultrasound image. Pattern Recog- nition, 124:108427, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Anatomical prior based vertebra modelling for reappearance of human spines

    Qinghua Huang, Hao Luo, Cui Yang, Jianyi Li, Qifeng Deng, Peng Liu, Maoqing Fu, Le Li, and Xuelong Li. Anatomical prior based vertebra modelling for reappearance of human spines. Neurocomputing, 500:750–760, 2022. 21

    2022

  8. [16]

    Evaluation of pulmonary edema using ultrasound imaging in patients with covid-19 pneumonia based on a non-local channel attention resnet

    Qinghua Huang, Ye Lei, Wenyu Xing, Chao He, Gaofeng Wei, Zhaoji Miao, Yifan Hao, Guannan Li, Yan Wang, Qingli Li, et al. Evaluation of pulmonary edema using ultrasound imaging in patients with covid-19 pneumonia based on a non-local channel attention resnet. Ultrasound in medi...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Nag-net: Nested attention-guided learning for segmentation of carotid lumen- intima interface and media-adventitia interface

    Qinghua Huang, Liangrun Zhao, Guanqing Ren, Xiaoyi Wang, Chunying Liu, and Wei Wang. Nag-net: Nested attention-guided learning for segmentation of carotid lumen- intima interface and media-adventitia interface. Computers in Biology and Medicine , 156:106718, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bsmnet: Boundary-salience multi-branch network for intima-media identification in carotid ultrasound images

    Guang-Quan Zhou, Hao Wei, Xiaoyi Wang, Kai-Ni Wang, Yuzhao Chen, Fei Xiong, Guanqing Ren, Chunying Liu, Le Li, and Qinghua Huang. Bsmnet: Boundary-salience multi-branch network for intima-media identification in carotid ultrasound images. Computers in Biology and Medicine , pa...

    2023

  11. [19]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arX...

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation

    Jeya Maria Jose Valanarasu, Poojan Oza, Ilker Hacihaliloglu, and Vishal M Patel. Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th Interna- tional Conference, Strasbourg, F...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2022 Workshops: Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, pages 205–218....

    2022

  14. [22]

    Multi-compound transformer for accurate biomedical image segmentation

    Yuanfeng Ji, Ruimao Zhang, Huijie Wang, Zhen Li, Lingyun Wu, Shaoting Zhang, and Ping Luo. Multi-compound transformer for accurate biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbour...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation

    Jieneng Chen, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Xiangde Luo, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Le Lu, Alan L Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Uctransnet: rethinking the skip connections in u-net from a channel-wise perspective with transformer

    Haonan Wang, Peng Cao, Jiaqi Wang, and Osmar R Zaiane. Uctransnet: rethinking the skip connections in u-net from a channel-wise perspective with transformer. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 36, pages 2441– 2449, 2022. 22

    2022

  17. [25]

    Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again

    Xiaohan Ding, Xiangyu Zhang, Ningning Ma, Jungong Han, Guiguang Ding, and Jian Sun. Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 13733–13742, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset

    Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, P ˚ al Halvorsen, Thomas de Lange, Dag Johansen, and H ˚ avard D Johansen. Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset. In Mul- tiMedia Modeling: 26th International Conference, MMM 2020, Daejeon, South Korea, January 5–8, 2020, Proceedi...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Esfpnet: efficient deep learning architecture for real-time lesion segmentation in aut- ofluorescence bronchoscopic video

    Qi Chang, Danish Ahmad, Jennifer Toth, Rebecca Bascom, and William E Higgins. Esfpnet: efficient deep learning architecture for real-time lesion segmentation in aut- ofluorescence bronchoscopic video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07759 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Stepwise feature fusion: Local guides global

    Jinfeng Wang, Qiming Huang, Feilong Tang, Jia Meng, Jionglong Su, and Sifan Song. Stepwise feature fusion: Local guides global. In Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2022: 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18–22, 2022, Proceed...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Fcn-transformer feature fusion for polyp segmentation

    Edward Sanderson and Bogdan J Matuszewski. Fcn-transformer feature fusion for polyp segmentation. In Medical Image Understanding and Analysis: 26th Annual Conference, MIUA 2022, Cambridge, UK, July 27–29, 2022, Proceedings , pages 892–907. Springer, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Association of genomic subtypes of lower-grade gliomas with shape features automatically extracted by a deep learning algorithm

    Mateusz Buda, Ashirbani Saha, and Maciej A Mazurowski. Association of genomic subtypes of lower-grade gliomas with shape features automatically extracted by a deep learning algorithm. Computers in biology and medicine , 109:218–225, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Maciej A Mazurowski, Kal Clark, Nicholas M Czarnek, Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, Katherine B Peters, and Ashirbani Saha. Radiogenomics of lower-grade glioma: algorithmically-assessed tumor shape is associated with tumor genomic subtypes and patient outcomes in a multi-institutiona...

    2017

  24. [32]

    Dataset of breast ultrasound images

    Walid Al-Dhabyani, Mohammed Gomaa, Hussien Khaled, and Aly Fahmy. Dataset of breast ultrasound images. Data in brief , 28:104863, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3431–3440, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large- scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large- scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning , pages 6105–6114. PMLR, 2019. 23

    2019

  28. [36]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous con- volution, and fully connected crfs

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous con- volution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(4):834–...

    2017

  30. [38]

    Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7062 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dual attention network for scene segmentation

    Jun Fu, Jing Liu, Haijie Tian, Yong Li, Yongjun Bao, Zhiwei Fang, and Hanqing Lu. Dual attention network for scene segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3146–3154, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Extrac- tion of vascular wall in carotid ultrasound via a novel boundary-delineation network

    Qinghua Huang, Lizhi Jia, Guanqing Ren, Xiaoyi Wang, and Chunying Liu. Extrac- tion of vascular wall in carotid ultrasound via a novel boundary-delineation network. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , 121:106069, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Dense prediction and local fusion of superpixels: A framework for breast anatomy segmentation in ultrasound image with scarce data

    Qinghua Huang, Zhaoji Miao, Shichong Zhou, Cai Chang, and Xuelong Li. Dense prediction and local fusion of superpixels: A framework for breast anatomy segmentation in ultrasound image with scarce data. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70:1–8, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Segnet: A deep convo- lutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation

    Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. Segnet: A deep convo- lutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 39(12):2481–2495, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Resunet-a: A deep learning framework for semantic segmentation of remotely sensed data

    Foivos I Diakogiannis, Fran¸ cois Waldner, Peter Caccetta, and Chen Wu. Resunet-a: A deep learning framework for semantic segmentation of remotely sensed data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , 162:94–114, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    A novel image-to-knowledge inference approach for automatically diagnosing tumors

    Qinghua Huang, Dan Wang, Zhenkun Lu, Shichong Zhou, Jiawei Li, Longzhong Liu, and Cai Chang. A novel image-to-knowledge inference approach for automatically diagnosing tumors. Expert Systems with Applications , page 120450, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 24

    2017

  39. [47]

    Rethinking semantic segmentation from a sequence-to-sequence perspective with transformers

    Sixiao Zheng, Jiachen Lu, Hengshuang Zhao, Xiatian Zhu, Zekun Luo, Yabiao Wang, Yanwei Fu, Jianfeng Feng, Tao Xiang, Philip HS Torr, et al. Rethinking semantic segmentation from a sequence-to-sequence perspective with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on c...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Vision transformers for dense prediction

    Ren´ e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vision transformers for dense prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 12179–12188, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

  42. [50]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pages 448–456. pmlr, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    Unified perceptual parsing for scene understanding

    Tete Xiao, Yingcheng Liu, Bolei Zhou, Yuning Jiang, and Jian Sun. Unified perceptual parsing for scene understanding. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 418–434, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Doll´ ar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2117–2125, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation

    Shu Liu, Lu Qi, Haifang Qin, Jianping Shi, and Jiaya Jia. Path aggregation network for instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8759–8768, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2881–2890, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 37(9):1904–1916, 2015

    1904

  48. [56]

    Neighborhood attention transformer

    Ali Hassani, Steven Walton, Jiachen Li, Shen Li, and Humphrey Shi. Neighborhood attention transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07143 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples

    Yin Cui, Menglin Jia, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yang Song, and Serge Belongie. Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 9268–9277, 2019. 25

    2019

  51. [59]

    Acnet: Strengthening the kernel skeletons for powerful cnn via asymmetric convolution blocks

    Xiaohan Ding, Yuchen Guo, Guiguang Ding, and Jungong Han. Acnet: Strengthening the kernel skeletons for powerful cnn via asymmetric convolution blocks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 1911–1920, 2019

    1911

  52. [60]

    Diverse branch block: Building a convolution as an inception-like unit

    Xiaohan Ding, Xiangyu Zhang, Jungong Han, and Guiguang Ding. Diverse branch block: Building a convolution as an inception-like unit. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 10886–10895, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Escaping the big data paradigm with compact transformers

    Ali Hassani, Steven Walton, Nikhil Shah, Abulikemu Abuduweili, Jiachen Li, and Humphrey Shi. Escaping the big data paradigm with compact transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05704, 2021. 26

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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