Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Composite Alignment-Aware Framework for Myocardial Lesion Segmentation in Multi-sequence CMR Images

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CAA-Seg, a two-stage alignment-aware framework, reports infarction Dice of 51.11%, beating the previous best by 5.54 points.

desk verdict The architecture is thoughtful and the ablation is helpful, but the headline 5.54-point MI gain is confounded by an input-channel asymmetry the paper never controls for. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11886 v1 pith:NW5ZO4YT submitted 2025-07-16 eess.IV

Yifan Gao , Shaohao Rui , Haoyang Su , Jinyi Xiang , Lianming Wu , Xiaosong Wang This is my paper
classification eess.IV
keywords multi-sequenceCMRmyocardiallesionsegmentationselectiveslicealignmenthierarchicalfeaturefusiondeformableconvolutioncross-attentionlategadoliniumenhancementT1/T2mapping
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

Multi-sequence cardiac MRI carries complementary markers for myocardial infarction and edema, but the sequences are acquired with different slice counts and positions, so fusing them naively forces anatomically false correspondences or interpolation artifacts. The paper's claim is that the fix is composite alignment: first match only the slice pairs that truly correspond anatomically between LGE and T1/T2 mapping sequences, then align the merged features at two semantic levels. Validated on 397 patients, the framework reports 78.09% Dice for myocardium, 65.49% for edema, and 51.11% for infarction, beating the second-best method by 5.54 points on infarction. A sympathetic reading is that selective slice correspondence, rather than simply more fusion capacity, is what makes multi-sequence CMR segmentation work on routine, imperfectly aligned acquisitions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the selective slice alignment (SSA) scheme, an optimization over slice correspondences: for each LGE slice the method chooses a moving T1m/T2m slice by minimizing $L_{MMI}(I_f^k, I_m^j \circ \phi_k) + \lambda R(\phi_k)$ over a sliding window $j \in [j_{k-1}, N-M+k]$, where Mattes mutual information scores multi-sequence similarity and the window enforces sequential order while reserving enough slices for later matches. This yields a registered volume built only from reliably matched slice pairs. The second mechanism is the hierarchical alignment network (HA-Net), which splits the residual alignment problem by feature level: low-level features pass through deformable convolution offset fields with learned $\gamma,\beta$ modulation, high-level features pass through two cascaded cross-attention blocks that query the LGE features against T1m and then T2m, and a task-aware controller injects a learned prompt at the bottleneck. The division of labor—slice selection first, then feature-level correction—is what the paper identifies as the source of its infarction-segmentation advantage.

What would settle it

Run nnU-Net or UMamba on the identical three-sequence, SSA-aligned input that CAA-Seg receives, keeping every other training setting the same; if infarction Dice moves from 45.30% toward 51.11%, the headline margin is an input advantage rather than an alignment effect. A second check: replace the MMI-optimized slice matching with order-preserving random pairing inside the full pipeline; if the overall 64.89% Dice is unchanged, the selective slice alignment carries none of the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the two barriers to multi-sequence CMR lesion segmentation—anatomical slice mismatch caused by different acquisition protocols and intensity variation across sequences—should be handled as separate problems before segmentation. Stage one, selective slice alignment, searches paired LGE and T1/T2 mapping slices for the anatomically most plausible correspondences, scoring candidate pairs with Mattes mutual information and constraining the search so that slice order is preserved and enough slices remain for the rest of the sequence; mismatched pairs are excluded rather than force-registered. Stage two, the hierarchical alignment network, corrects residual local deformation in low-level features with deformable convolutions and pixel-wise modulation, fuses high-level semantic features through cascaded cross-attention, and conditions the bottleneck on a task prompt. The authors report that the full system reaches an overall Dice of 64.89% and an infarction Dice of 51.11%, a 5.54-point gain over the second-best method, and they attribute the gain to the alignment-aware design.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison protocol gives the general baselines only LGE images while CAA-Seg receives all three sequences, so the 5.54-point infarction margin is credited to the alignment framework even though richer input alone could explain part of it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, clinical pipelines could ingest unaligned LGE and T1/T2 acquisitions directly, without manual slice screening or aggressive resampling of 3-slice maps to 8-slice volumes.
  • The selective slice matching principle transfers to other multi-sequence settings with unequal slice sampling, such as combining cine with LGE or adding parametric mapping sequences.
  • The largest measured gain is on infarction, the smallest and most clinically consequential target, which suggests the alignment machinery matters most where lesions are subtle and easy to corrupt.
  • The accuracy gain costs modest compute: 0.71 s and 1.8 GB per case versus 0.52 s and 1.1 GB for nnU-Net, which the paper presents as an acceptable trade.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorially, the 5.54-point infarction margin is not fully isolated from the input advantage: because the general baselines were evaluated with LGE only, a same-input comparison would be needed to attribute the gain specifically to the alignment machinery.
  • Editorially, the sliding-window slice matching could be made differentiable and folded into the network as a soft correspondence layer, letting registration and segmentation objectives train jointly rather than as separate stages.
  • Editorially, the same two-stage selection-then-alignment recipe should apply to other cross-modality imaging problems with asymmetric slice sampling, such as MRI-to-CT or echocardiography-to-CMR, where dense registration is currently assumed rather than selectively chosen.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes CAA-Seg, a two-stage framework for myocardial lesion segmentation from multi-sequence CMR images. The first stage, selective slice alignment (SSA), matches LGE slices to corresponding T1-mapping and T2-mapping slices via mutual-information optimization with a sliding-window constraint. The second stage, a hierarchical alignment network (HA-Net), fuses features with local deformable-convolution corrections and global cross-attention, plus a task-aware controller at the bottleneck. The authors evaluate on a 397-patient in-house dataset and report Dice and HD95 for myocardium, edema, and infarction, claiming a 5.54-point improvement over the second-best method for infarction segmentation (Table 1). Ablations vary registration, network, and input modality within their pipeline (Table 2). Code is provided.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, CAA-Seg addresses a real clinical problem—heterogeneous slice sampling across CMR sequences—and the two-stage alignment approach is a sensible design. The paper's strengths include a relatively large dataset (397 patients), release of code, an ablation study, and statistical significance testing with Wilcoxon tests. However, the central quantitative claim is currently undermined by a comparison protocol that varies the method and the input modality simultaneously, and by the absence of variance estimates and external validation. The contribution is potentially significant for the multi-sequence CMR segmentation community, but the empirical evidence as presented does not yet support the stated superiority.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Experimental Setup; Table 1] The comparison is confounded: general frameworks (nnU-Net, UNet++, TransUNet, Swin UNETR, UTNet, UMamba) were evaluated using only LGE images, while CAA-Seg and cardiac-specific baselines received LGE plus T1m/T2m. Thus the reported 5.54-point MI improvement (51.11 vs 45.57) may reflect the additional input sequences rather than the proposed alignment and fusion modules. The authors should either report the multi-sequence-input results for the general baselines (they state these degraded but do not show the numbers) or add a control condition in which a general network is trained on SSA-aligned multi-sequence volumes. Without that control, the central superiority claim is not supported.
  2. [Table 2, Ablation] The ablation rows vary registration (MvMM vs SSA), network (nnU-Net vs HA-Net), and input (LGE vs Multi), but all conditions operate on the authors' own pipeline. There is no row combining SSA-aligned multi-sequence input with a general baseline network such as nnU-Net. Consequently, the ablation cannot isolate the effect of the alignment mechanism from the effect of the additional sequences, and it does not provide the control needed to interpret the comparison in Table 1.
  3. [Section 3, Dataset paragraph; Table 1] Only 208 of 397 patients have MI annotations, and the paper reports no confidence intervals, standard deviations, or repeated-run variability for the Dice/HD95 values. The reported p-values from the Wilcoxon signed rank test indicate significance but not effect-size stability. Given the small MI target and the single in-house dataset, the 'substantial 5.54% improvement' may not be robust. The authors should report bootstrap or repeated-run intervals and, ideally, validate on an external or public dataset such as MyoPS.
  4. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(7)] The selective slice alignment method is not fully specified. The values of λ, the search-range parameters N and M, and the window size are not given. Furthermore, the text and Fig. 2 indicate both T1m and T2m are aligned to LGE, but the manuscript does not explain how the two moving sequences (each with only 2-3 slices, as stated in the Introduction) are jointly handled by the single optimization in Eq. (4), nor how the 'LGE x2' duplicated input is generated and used. These details are needed to reproduce the method and to assess whether the alignment is anatomically meaningful.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The method name 'A WSNet' should be 'AWSNet' to match reference [14]; please unify the notation across the table and text.
  2. [Table 2] The table header 'Settings Registration Network Input Overall' is not aligned with the row contents; the row labels (e.g., 'Baseline', 'MvMM', 'SSA') are not separated into clear columns, making it difficult to read which configuration corresponds to each Dice/HD95 value. Please reformat the table.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (9)] In Eq. (9), γ and β are described as 'pixel-wise' modulation parameters but are produced from a GlobalPool operation, which suggests they are channel-wise; please specify the exact dimensions and operation.
  4. [Section 2.2, Eq. (11)] The task prompt Ptask is not defined; specify how it is initialized, whether it is learned, and how the task ID (0 for LGE+T1m+T2m, 1 for LGE x3 in Fig. 2) is encoded.
  5. [Section 3, Statistical analysis] The Wilcoxon signed rank test is used, but the pairing unit (slice or patient) is not stated; please clarify.
  6. [Section 3, Experimental Setup] The claim that general frameworks show 'performance degradation with multi-sequence input' is not supported by any reported results; at minimum, include the corresponding numbers in the supplementary material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central claim is an empirical benchmark result, and the self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical segmentation result on a held-out test set, not a quantity derived from its own inputs by construction. CAA-Seg is an architectural contribution (selective slice alignment plus a hierarchical fusion network), and its performance is measured against external baselines and an ablation study. No parameter is fitted to the reported metric and then renamed as a prediction; no equation reduces to another equation by definition. The self-citations (Refs. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9) are used for general background on clinical burden, inter-observer variability, and earlier multimodal segmentation works, and none of these citations is load-bearing for the claimed 5.54% MI improvement. The main validity concern is the comparison asymmetry noted in Section 3: general frameworks were evaluated with only LGE input while CAA-Seg and cardiac-specific methods received multi-sequence input, so the performance gap may partly reflect the additional input sequences rather than the alignment mechanism. However, this is a fairness/attribution issue, not circularity: the result is still an experimentally measured outcome rather than an outcome forced by the definition of the method or by a self-citation chain. The paper also discloses the dependent measure (Dice and HD95), the train/validation/test split, and the statistical test used, which further supports that the claim is empirical. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and rests on the correctness of the registration similarity, the expressive power of the feature-alignment modules, the quality of annotations, and the fairness of the comparison protocol. No closed-form derivation is attempted. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen hyperparameters and search-range settings; their values are not fully reported or ablated.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (registration regularization weight) = not reported
    Appears in Eq. 1 as lambda balancing mutual-information similarity against deformation regularity; value chosen by the authors but not disclosed; affects the quality of slice alignment and therefore downstream segmentation.
  • Sliding-window search range parameters (N, M, k) = not reported beyond definitions
    Eq. 5 defines the dynamic range for matching candidate slices. The exact window size and constraints are hand-defined and not evaluated for sensitivity; they directly determine which slices are aligned.
  • Network hyperparameters (input size 384x384, channels {32,64,128,256,512,512,512}, 8 attention heads, hidden dim 256… = as listed in Section 3
    Architecture and training choices are hand-selected; no ablation or sensitivity analysis is provided for them. They influence the final Dice values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mutual information is a reliable similarity metric for identifying anatomically corresponding slices across LGE and T1/T2 mapping
    Used in Eq. 2 and 4 to select matching slice pairs; if MI does not correspond to anatomical correspondence, SSA aligns wrong slices.
  • domain assumption Deformable convolution and cross-attention can correct residual misalignment and fuse features from different MRI sequences
    Central to HA-Net (Eq. 8-10); no proof or analysis that these operations achieve the intended alignment beyond final Dice.
  • domain assumption Manual annotations are accurate and consistent
    All metrics are computed against clinician annotations; no inter-observer variability or annotation protocol details are given.
  • domain assumption The random split of the 397-patient dataset is representative and unbiased
    Training/validation/test split is random; no stratification by disease type or scanner; performance may not generalize.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Composite Alignment-Aware Framework for Myocardial Lesion Segmentation in Multi-sequence CMR Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NW5ZO4YT

@misc{pith2026250711886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Composite Alignment-Aware Framework for Myocardial Lesion Segmentation in Multi-sequence CMR Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NW5ZO4YT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11886}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate segmentation of myocardial lesions from multi-sequence cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is essential for cardiac disease diagnosis and treatment planning. However, achieving optimal feature correspondence is challenging due to intensity variations across modalities and spatial misalignment caused by inconsistent slice acquisition protocols. We propose CAA-Seg, a composite alignment-aware framework that addresses these challenges through a two-stage approach. First, we introduce a selective slice alignment method that dynamically identifies and aligns anatomically corresponding slice pairs while excluding mismatched sections, ensuring reliable spatial correspondence between sequences. Second, we develop a hierarchical alignment network that processes multi-sequence features at different semantic levels, i.e., local deformation correction modules address geometric variations in low-level features, while global semantic fusion blocks enable semantic fusion at high levels where intensity discrepancies diminish. We validate our method on a large-scale dataset comprising 397 patients. Experimental results show that our proposed CAA-Seg achieves superior performance on most evaluation metrics, with particularly strong results in myocardial infarction segmentation, representing a substantial 5.54% improvement over state-of-the-art approaches. The code is available at https://github.com/yifangao112/CAA-Seg.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Visualization of misalignment challenges in multi-sequence CMR. (b.1) Re￾sampling distortion: Aggressive resampling of T1/T2 mapping (3 to 8 slices) intro￾duces interpolation artifacts and structural distortion. (b.2) Anatomical mismatch: LGE and T1/T2 mapping slices were acquired at different anatomical positions, caus￾ing misalignment. These challenges motivate our selective slice alignment strategy that prese… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed HA-Net. The framework consists of dual encoders for multi-sequence CMR processing, with specialized alignment modules at different feature levels. Local deformation correction modules address spatial misalignment in low-level features, while cascaded cross-attention blocks enable semantic fusion at high￾level features. A task-aware controller at the bottleneck adaptively modulates features b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of myocardial lesion segmentation results across different methods with myocardium shown in red, myocardial edema in green, and myocardial infarction in blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dino U-Net: Exploiting High-Fidelity Dense Features from Foundation Models for Medical Image Segmentation

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dino U-Net combines a frozen DINOv3 backbone with an adapter and fidelity-aware projection module to achieve state-of-the-art medical image segmentation across seven public datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk: a compass for future health, 2022

    Muthiah Vaduganathan, George A Mensah, Justine Varieur Turco, Valentin Fuster, and Gregory A Roth. The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk: a compass for future health, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Car- diocot: Hierarchical reasoning for multimodal survival analysis

    Shaohao Rui, Haoyang Su, Jinyi Xiang, Lian-Ming Wu, and Xiaosong Wang. Car- diocot: Hierarchical reasoning for multimodal survival analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19195, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Desam: Decoupled segment anything model for generalizable medical image segmentation

    Yifan Gao, Wei Xia, Dingdu Hu, Wenkui Wang, and Xin Gao. Desam: Decoupled segment anything model for generalizable medical image segmentation. In Inter- national Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Inter- vention, pages 509–519. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Mba-net: Sam-driven bidirec- tional aggregation network for ovarian tumor segmentation

    Yifan Gao, Wei Xia, Wenkui Wang, and Xin Gao. Mba-net: Sam-driven bidirec- tional aggregation network for ovarian tumor segmentation. In International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 437–447. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Prognostic value of cardiac mri late gadolinium enhancement granularity in participants with ischemic cardiomyopathy.Radiology, 314(1):e240806, 2025

    Alexandre Unger, J´ erˆ ome Garot, Solenn Toupin, Suzanne Duhamel, Francesca Sanguineti, Thomas Hovasse, St´ ephane Champagne, Thierry Unterseeh, Bernard Chevalier, Mariama Akodad, et al. Prognostic value of cardiac mri late gadolinium enhancement granularity in participants with ischemic cardiomyopathy.Radiology, 314(1):e240806, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Xi Liu, Yue Gao, Ying-Kun Guo, Chun-Chao Xia, Rui Shi, Li Jiang, Meng-Ting Shen, Lin-Jun Xie, Wan-Lin Peng, Wen-Lei Qian, et al. Cardiac magnetic reso- nance t1 mapping for evaluating myocardial fibrosis in patients with type 2 dia- betes mellitus: correlation with left ventricular longitudinal diastolic dysfunction. European Radiology, 32(11):7647–7656, ...

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Clinical impact of cardiac mri t1 and t2 parametric mapping in patients with suspected cardiomyopathy

    William Warnica, Amna Al-Arnawoot, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Rachel M Wald, Mini Pakkal, Gauri Rani Karur, Bernd J Win- tersperger, Valeria Rac, and Kate Hanneman. Clinical impact of cardiac mri t1 and t2 parametric mapping in patients with suspected cardiomyopathy. Radiology, 305(2):319–326, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    An anatomy-aware framework for automatic segmentation of parotid tumor from multimodal mri

    Yifan Gao, Yin Dai, Fayu Liu, Weibing Chen, and Lifu Shi. An anatomy-aware framework for automatic segmentation of parotid tumor from multimodal mri. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 161:107000, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Transmed: Transformers advance multi-modal medical image classification

    Yin Dai, Yifan Gao, and Fayu Liu. Transmed: Transformers advance multi-modal medical image classification. Diagnostics, 11(8):1384, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Cardiac seg- mentation from lge mri using deep neural network incorporating shape and spatial priors

    Qian Yue, Xinzhe Luo, Qing Ye, Lingchao Xu, and Xiahai Zhuang. Cardiac seg- mentation from lge mri using deep neural network incorporating shape and spatial priors. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzh...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Car- diac lge mri segmentation with cross-modality image augmentation and improved u-net

    Xinhua Yu, Junxin Chen, Bo Fang, Wei Wang, Li-bo Zhang, and Zhihan Lv. Car- diac lge mri segmentation with cross-modality image augmentation and improved u-net. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 27(2):588–597, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Medical image analysis on left atrial lge mri for atrial fibrillation studies: A review

    Lei Li, Veronika A Zimmer, Julia A Schnabel, and Xiahai Zhuang. Medical image analysis on left atrial lge mri for atrial fibrillation studies: A review. Medical image analysis, 77:102360, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Max-fusion u-net for multi-modal pathology segmentation with attention and dynamic resampling

    Haochuan Jiang, Chengjia Wang, Agisilaos Chartsias, and Sotirios A Tsaftaris. Max-fusion u-net for multi-modal pathology segmentation with attention and dynamic resampling. In Myocardial Pathology Segmentation Combining Multi- Sequence Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Images: First ...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Awsnet: An auto-weighted su- pervision attention network for myocardial scar and edema segmentation in multi- sequence cardiac magnetic resonance images

    Kai-Ni Wang, Xin Yang, Juzheng Miao, Lei Li, Jing Yao, Ping Zhou, Wufeng Xue, Guang-Quan Zhou, Xiahai Zhuang, and Dong Ni. Awsnet: An auto-weighted su- pervision attention network for myocardial scar and edema segmentation in multi- sequence cardiac magnetic resonance images. ...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Myops-net: Myocardial pathology segmentation with flexible combination of multi-sequence cmr images

    Junyi Qiu, Lei Li, Sihan Wang, Ke Zhang, Yinyin Chen, Shan Yang, and Xiahai Zhuang. Myops-net: Myocardial pathology segmentation with flexible combination of multi-sequence cmr images. Medical image analysis, 84:102694, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Multi-modal disease segmentation with continual learning and adaptive decision fusion

    Xu Xu, Junxin Chen, Dipanwita Thakur, and Duo Hong. Multi-modal disease segmentation with continual learning and adaptive decision fusion. Information Fusion, page 102962, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Myops: A benchmark of myocardial pathology segmentation combining three-sequence car- diac magnetic resonance images

    Lei Li, Fuping Wu, Sihan Wang, Xinzhe Luo, Carlos Mart ´ ın-Isla, Shuwei Zhai, Jianpeng Zhang, Yanfei Liu, Zhen Zhang, Markus J Ankenbrand, et al. Myops: A benchmark of myocardial pathology segmentation combining three-sequence car- diac magnetic resonance images. Medical Imag...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Uniseg: A prompt-driven universal segmentation model as well as a strong representation learner

    Yiwen Ye, Yutong Xie, Jianpeng Zhang, Ziyang Chen, and Yong Xia. Uniseg: A prompt-driven universal segmentation model as well as a strong representation learner. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, pages 508–518. Springer, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation

    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. Composite Alignment-Aware Framework 11

    2021

  12. [20]

    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 learning in medical image analysis and multimodal learning for clinical decision support: 4th international workshop, DLM...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Transunet: Rethinking the u-net architecture design for medical image segmentation through the lens of transformers

    Jieneng Chen, Jieru Mei, Xianhang Li, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Qingyue Wei, Xi- angde Luo, Yutong Xie, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, et al. Transunet: Rethinking the u-net architecture design for medical image segmentation through the lens of transformers. Medical Image Analysis, 97:103...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Vishwesh Nath, Yucheng Tang, Dong Yang, Holger R Roth, and Daguang Xu. Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In International MICCAI brainlesion workshop, pages 272–

  15. [23]

    Utnet: a hybrid transformer ar- chitecture for medical image segmentation

    Yunhe Gao, Mu Zhou, and Dimitris N Metaxas. Utnet: a hybrid transformer ar- chitecture for medical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and com- puter assisted intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th international conference, Stras- bourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021...

    2021

  16. [24]

    U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation

    Jun Ma, Feifei Li, and Bo Wang. U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04722, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Multivariate mixture model for myocardial segmentation com- bining multi-source images

    Xiahai Zhuang. Multivariate mixture model for myocardial segmentation com- bining multi-source images. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 41(12):2933–2946, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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