Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Adaptive Interactive Segmentation for Multimodal Medical Imaging via Selection Engine

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a hand-designed frame-selection score improves SAM2-based interactive medical segmentation by 6 to 11 Dice points across seven imaging modalities.

desk verdict Plausible SAM2 prompt-selection heuristic with a genuinely useful modality-prompt comparison, but the headline random baseline is confounded by prompt budget and the scoring weights are undisclosed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19447 v1 pith:OZAQU3B3 submitted 2024-11-29 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Zhi Li , Kai Zhao , Yaqi Wang , Shuai Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords medicalimagesegmentationinteractiveSegmentAnythingModel2frameselectionunsupervisedscoringk-meansclusteringmultimodalimagingprompt
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

This paper tries to show that the biggest bottleneck in interactive medical image segmentation is not the segmentation model but the choice of which frames to prompt. It introduces SISeg, a SAM2-based system whose Adaptive Frame Selection Engine (AFSE) scores every frame by brightness, contrast, edge density, color-histogram similarity, and Hu-moment shape similarity to a clinician-chosen reference, then uses k-means clustering to pick representative frames as prompts. Across ten datasets covering seven imaging modalities, the paper reports that this selection strategy outperforms random and uniform frame choices, with Dice gains of roughly 6 to 11 points on several modalities while using the same number of prompts. A sympathetic reader would care because the engine is unsupervised, needs no per-modality fine-tuning, and could lower the manual annotation cost of segmenting medical image sequences.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Adaptive Frame Selection Engine (AFSE), built from a Scorer and a Selector. The Scorer computes the composite score $F = \alpha B + \beta C + \gamma E + \delta H + \epsilon S$ from five image features; the Selector applies k-means to the resulting scores and returns the frames closest to the cluster centroids as the prompt frames for SAM2. This turns prompt selection into an unsupervised clustering problem, and it is this automatic ordering and selection that the paper credits for the accuracy improvements and reduced memory load during sequence inference.

What would settle it

Take one modality, such as the chest X-ray dataset, and run the AFSE pipeline while holding out one of the five feature terms from $F$ at a time and while sweeping the five weights and the choice of reference frame; if the reported Dice advantage over uniform selection disappears under any of these variations, the claim that the composite score selects optimal prompt frames is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that an unsupervised, hand-designed scoring function can reliably select prompt frames that let SAM2 propagate segmentation through 2D medical image sequences better than naive frame selection. The score is the weighted combination $F = \alpha B + \beta C + \gamma E + \delta H + \epsilon S$, where $B$ is mean grayscale brightness, $C$ is the standard deviation of grayscale intensities, $E$ is Canny edge density, $H$ is HSV histogram correlation with the reference frame, and $S$ is a Hu-moment shape similarity term. K-means clustering on this one-dimensional score partitions the sequence, and the frames nearest the centroids become the prompts that drive SAM2's propagation. The paper reports that AFSE with the scorer beats AFSE without the scorer by 9.39 Dice points in X-ray and 10.97 points in mammography, and that bounding-box prompts consistently outperform point prompts across modalities.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a frame's similarity to a clinician-chosen reference, measured by a weighted sum of brightness, contrast, edge density, color-histogram correlation, and Hu-moment shape, predicts how well prompting that frame will let SAM2 segment the rest of the sequence, and the paper never reports the weights or validates that assumption independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On modalities such as X-ray and mammography, AFSE's scoring mechanism is credited with Dice improvements of about 9 to 11 points relative to a version without the scorer, so clinicians could annotate fewer frames for the same accuracy.
  • The method works with several SAM2 Hiera model sizes, meaning the selection engine can be paired with whatever capacity the deployment hardware allows.
  • Bounding-box prompts should be the default prompt type for SAM2-based medical segmentation, since the paper finds point-prompt combinations are brittle across modalities.
  • Because the scorer is unsupervised and needs no medical prior, the same framework can be dropped onto a new modality with only a reference frame and a set of cluster centers to define.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is per-modality weight tuning for the five terms in $F$; if the weights used in the paper are not optimized, the reported Dice gains are a lower bound on what the selection idea could achieve.
  • The same frame-selection logic applies to any video or volumetric segmentation model, not just SAM2; testing AFSE on a different propagation backbone would show whether the gains come from the selection or from the model.
  • One testable risk is that the score measures similarity to a single clinician-chosen reference, so the method's success may depend on that reference being representative; swapping the reference frame is an easy robustness check.
  • A possible future direction is to replace the five hand-picked features with features extracted by the segmentation model itself, which could make the selection engine adapt to the task rather than to generic image statistics.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SISeg, a SAM2-based interactive segmentation framework for multimodal medical imaging, centered on an Adaptive Frame Selection Engine (AFSE). AFSE scores each frame with a weighted combination of brightness, contrast, edge density, color histogram similarity, and Hu-moment shape similarity relative to a clinician-chosen reference frame, then applies k-means clustering to select representative prompt frames for SAM2's propagation. Experiments across 10 datasets and 7 modalities report Dice scores comparing AFSE to random and uniform selection strategies, and the authors claim consistent improvements. The central claim is that AFSE's scoring mechanism selects frames that improve downstream segmentation Dice while reducing manual prompts.

Significance. If the core claim were established, the framework could offer a practical way to reduce manual prompting in SAM2-based medical image segmentation, with potential value for modalities where sequence-level interaction is needed. The paper's breadth—10 datasets across 7 modalities—is a strength, as is the integration of a selection mechanism into a widely used foundation model. However, the current evidence does not support the central claim because of a prompt-budget confound in the main comparison, unspecified parameters in the scoring function, and the absence of statistical validation. These issues are load-bearing and require additional experiments rather than simple edits.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV-B, Table II] The comparison is confounded by prompt budget: the 'Random 1' row uses one reference frame while 'AFSE 5' uses five. The reported gains (e.g., Der 59.84 to 62.55, OCT 31.99 to 33.90) could be due to the larger number of prompt frames alone, not to the AFSE scoring mechanism. A same-budget random baseline (Random 5) is required to support the claim that the selection engine is responsible for the improvement. The only same-budget baseline, Uniform 5, actually beats AFSE on Fundus (99.97 vs 99.75) and essentially ties on US (99.83 vs 99.98), so the statement that AFSE 'consistently outperformed both random and uniform strategies' is not supported by the data as presented.
  2. [III-C, Eq. (1)] The weights α, β, γ, δ, ε in the composite score F are not reported anywhere. Since F is the basis of all frame selection, the method is not reproducible without these values, and the results may depend on constants chosen while looking at the test datasets. The authors should report the exact weights used, explain how they were set, and provide a sensitivity analysis over them (e.g., equal weights versus alternative values). Similarly, the number of clusters k in Eq. (7) is not specified; Table II uses R=5, but the relationship between R and k is never stated.
  3. [IV-A/IV-B] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any row of Table II. With only a 30% validation split and a single random draw, the random baseline is a single point estimate with unknown variance. The authors should run multiple random seeds or bootstrap resampling and report mean ± std, so that the comparisons between AFSE, Uniform, and Random can be assessed statistically.
  4. [IV-A/IV-B] The evaluation protocol is underdescribed. It is not stated how the bounding-box prompts are generated for each modality (e.g., manual annotation, automatic detector, or ground-truth boxes), nor how the clinician-chosen reference frame is selected and whether the same reference is used for all compared methods. In addition, the SAM2 variant used for Tables II–IV is not identified, although Table I shows substantial variation across variants (e.g., Endo Dice ranges from 85.27 to 93.61). This information is essential for reproducing the experiments.
  5. [III-C] The core assumption that frames similar to the reference in brightness, contrast, edge density, color histogram, and Hu moments are the best prompt frames for SAM2 propagation is not independently validated. The paper does not report any correlation between F and downstream Dice, nor does it compare against a diversity-based selection baseline. The ablation in Table IV shows individual features but still lacks a same-budget random control, so it does not demonstrate that F predicts prompt quality.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract/Index Terms] The index term 'Segmentatino' is a typo for 'Segmentation'.
  2. [Table III] The 'Four Neg' row for Endo reports '00.78', which appears to be a typo for '0.78' or another value; please correct.
  3. [Table IV] The column headers in Table IV are run together (e.g., 'MGBrightness62.31'); the table should be formatted with clear separations between modality names and Dice values.
  4. [IV-B] The text states that AFSE surpasses the second-best method 'by 9.39% in X-ray and 10.97% in Mammography', but Table II shows differences of 4.28 Dice points (60.07 vs 55.79) and 10.97 points (50.82 vs 39.85), respectively. The percentages are inconsistent with the tabulated values.
  5. [References] The 'Medical SAM Adapter' reference appears to be duplicated ([15] and [16]); please check the bibliography and ensure each cited work is distinct and correctly referenced.
  6. [IV-A] The datasets are split into 'training and validation sets', but no training is performed since SAM2 is used zero-shot. Clarify whether 'training' is simply a partition name or whether any fine-tuning occurs.
  7. [III-C, Eq. (6)] The definition of S in Eq. (6) is ambiguous: the expression appears to be -log(Σ|MHu(Iref)i − MHu(I)i| + ε), but the placement of parentheses is not clear. Using a clearer notation would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AFSE is a handcrafted heuristic tested against baselines; the Table II prompt-budget mismatch is a confound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the AFSE scoring formula (Eq. 1, a weighted sum of brightness, contrast, edge density, color-histogram similarity, and Hu-moment shape similarity relative to a clinician-chosen reference) selects prompt frames that improve SAM2-based segmentation Dice. This is an empirical heuristic, not a derivation: F is not defined in terms of the target Dice/IoU, and the selected frames are not asserted to equal the optimal frames by construction. The evaluation against random and uniform baselines on public datasets is self-contained; all cited models and datasets are external. The most serious flaw is experimental, not circular: Table II compares 'Random 1' (one prompt frame) against 'AFSE 5' (five prompt frames), so the reported gains are confounded by prompt budget, and the unreported weights in Eq. (1) are a reproducibility gap. But these are validity concerns; no equation or fitted parameter is shown to be equivalent to its input by construction, and no self-citation carries the argument. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central method rests on several unstated choices: the five scoring weights, the number of clusters, and the small constant in the shape term. None are derived or reported. SAM2 is taken as a given external model, and the assumption that feature-similar frames make good prompt frames is the paper's own ad hoc design decision.

free parameters (3)
  • Weights α, β, γ, δ, ε in composite score F (Eq. 1) = not reported
    The relative importance of brightness, contrast, edge density, color histogram similarity, and shape similarity is never given. The results in Tables II and IV likely depend on these choices, and the lack of reported values prevents reproduction.
  • Number of clusters k in KMeans (Eq. 7) = not reported; likely equal to R (5 in experiments)
    The number of representative frames and clusters is not stated. This determines which frames are selected, and different k values could change the results.
  • Epsilon small constant in Eq. (6) = not reported
    Prevents division by zero in the shape similarity term. Its value affects S and therefore the composite score F, but it is never specified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SAM2 is a valid zero-shot segmenter for medical images under bounding-box prompts.
    The entire evaluation uses pretrained SAM2 without fine-tuning. If SAM2 fails for a modality, AFSE cannot help. This is stated in Section I and used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Frames that are similar to a clinician-chosen reference in low-level features (brightness, contrast, edges, color histogram, shape) are the best prompt frames for propagating segmentation.
    This is the core design assumption of AFSE. It is not derived, not independently validated, and the weights are unreported, making it a paper-specific premise.
  • domain assumption The 7:3 train/validation split with fixed seed 2024 is a representative evaluation protocol.
    No repeated splits or cross-validation are used, so results may be sensitive to this particular split. This is declared in Section IV-A but not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Interactive Segmentation for Multimodal Medical Imaging via Selection Engine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZAQU3B3

@misc{pith2026241119447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Interactive Segmentation for Multimodal Medical Imaging via Selection Engine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZAQU3B3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19447}
}
read the original abstract

In medical image analysis, achieving fast, efficient, and accurate segmentation is essential for automated diagnosis and treatment. Although recent advancements in deep learning have significantly improved segmentation accuracy, current models often face challenges in adaptability and generalization, particularly when processing multi-modal medical imaging data. These limitations stem from the substantial variations between imaging modalities and the inherent complexity of medical data. To address these challenges, we propose the Strategy-driven Interactive Segmentation Model (SISeg), built on SAM2, which enhances segmentation performance across various medical imaging modalities by integrating a selection engine. To mitigate memory bottlenecks and optimize prompt frame selection during the inference of 2D image sequences, we developed an automated system, the Adaptive Frame Selection Engine (AFSE). This system dynamically selects the optimal prompt frames without requiring extensive prior medical knowledge and enhances the interpretability of the model's inference process through an interactive feedback mechanism. We conducted extensive experiments on 10 datasets covering 7 representative medical imaging modalities, demonstrating the SISeg model's robust adaptability and generalization in multi-modal tasks. The project page and code will be available at: [URL].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The model structure of SISeg. The figure illustrates the SAM2 architecture, which includes the image encoder, prompt encoder, memory attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of zero-shot segmentation results produced by different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. SafeClick: Error-Tolerant Interactive Segmentation of Any Medical Volumes via Hierarchical Expert Consensus

    eess.IV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SafeClick adds a hierarchical expert consensus module to SAM 2 and MedSAM 2 that improves segmentation accuracy under imperfect prompts.

  2. Implicit Shape-Prior for Few-Shot Assisted 3D Segmentation

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-organ implicit shape prior with error-based slice selection improves few-shot assisted 3D segmentation over regular-spacing baselines on brain CT and sarcopenia ultrasound data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, P. F. Jaeger, S. A. A. Kohl, J. Petersen, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation,” Nature Methods, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 203–211, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease,

    J. De Fauw, J. R. Ledsam, B. Romera-Paredes, S. Nikolov, N. Tomasev, S. Blackwell, H. Askham, X. Glorot, B. O’Donoghue, D. Visentin, et al., “Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease,” Nature Medicine, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1342–1350, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Video-based AI for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function,

    D. Ouyang, B. He, A. Ghorbani, N. Yuan, J. Ebinger, C. P. Langlotz, P. A. Heidenreich, R. A. Harrington, D. H. Liang, E. A. Ashley, et al., “Video-based AI for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function,” Nature, vol. 580, no. 7802, pp. 252–256, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    DeepIGeoS: a deep interactive geodesic framework for medical image segmentation,

    G. Wang, M. A. Zuluaga, W. Li, R. Pratt, P. A. Patel, M. Aertsen, T. Doel, A. L. David, J. Deprest, S. Ourselin, et al., “DeepIGeoS: a deep interactive geodesic framework for medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1559–1572, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W. Lo, et al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 4015–4026, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Interactive medical image segmentation using deep learning with image-specific fine tuning,

    G. Wang, W. Li, M. A. Zuluaga, R. Pratt, P. A. Patel, M. Aertsen, T. Doel, A. L. David, J. Deprest, S. Ourselin, et al., “Interactive medical image segmentation using deep learning with image-specific fine tuning,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1562–1573, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    V ol- umetric memory network for interactive medical image segmentation,

    T. Zhou, L. Li, G. Bredell, J. Li, J. Unkelbach, and E. Konukoglu, “V ol- umetric memory network for interactive medical image segmentation,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 83, pp. 102599, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    MIDeepSeg: Minimally interactive seg- mentation of unseen objects from medical images using deep learning,

    X. Luo, G. Wang, T. Song, J. Zhang, M. Aertsen, J. Deprest, S. Ourselin, T. Vercauteren, and S. Zhang, “MIDeepSeg: Minimally interactive seg- mentation of unseen objects from medical images using deep learning,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 72, pp. 102102, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Segment anything in medical images,

    J. Ma, Y . He, F. Li, L. Han, C. You, and B. Wang, “Segment anything in medical images,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 654, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    When sam meets medical images: An investigation of segment anything model (sam) on multi-phase liver tumor segmentation,

    C. Hu, T. Xia, S. Ju, and X. Li, “When sam meets medical images: An investigation of segment anything model (sam) on multi-phase liver tumor segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08506, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R¨adle, C. Rolland, and L. Gustafson, et al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sam on medical images: A comprehensive study on three prompt modes,

    D. Cheng, Z. Qin, Z. Jiang, S. Zhang, Q. Lao, and K. Li, “Sam on medical images: A comprehensive study on three prompt modes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00035, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Segment anything model (sam) for digital pathology: Assess zero-shot segmentation on whole slide imaging,

    R. Deng, C. Cui, Q. Liu, T. Yao, L. W. Remedios, S. W. Bao, B. A. Landman, L. E. Wheless, L. A. Coburn, K. T. Wilson, et al., “Segment anything model (sam) for digital pathology: Assess zero-shot segmentation on whole slide imaging,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04155, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sam. md: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the segment anything model,

    S. Roy, T. Wald, G. Koehler, M. R. Rokuss, N. Disch, J. Holzschuh, D. Zimmerer, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “Sam. md: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the segment anything model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05396, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ladder fine-tuning approach for sam integrating complementary network,

    S. Chai, R. K. Jain, S. Teng, J. Liu, Y . Li, T. Tateyama, and Y . Chen, “Ladder fine-tuning approach for sam integrating complementary network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12737, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,

    J. Wu, W. Ji, Y . Liu, H. Fu, M. Xu, Y . Xu, and Y . Jin, “Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12620, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A review of deep learning based methods for medical image multi-organ segmentation,

    Y . Fu, Y . Lei, T. Wang, W. J. Curran, T. Liu, and X. Yang, “A review of deep learning based methods for medical image multi-organ segmentation,” Physica Medica, vol. 85, pp. 107–122, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Abdominal multi-organ segmentation with organ-attention networks and statistical fusion,

    Y . Wang, Y . Zhou, W. Shen, S. Park, E. K. Fishman, and A. L. Yuille, “Abdominal multi-organ segmentation with organ-attention networks and statistical fusion,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 55, pp. 88–102, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Amos: A large-scale abdominal multi-organ benchmark for versatile medical image segmentation,

    Y . Ji, H. Bai, C. Ge, J. Yang, Y . Zhu, R. Zhang, Z. Li, L. Zhanng, W. Ma, X. Wan, et al., “Amos: A large-scale abdominal multi-organ benchmark for versatile medical image segmentation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 36722–36732, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III, pp. ...

    2015

  13. [21]

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

    F. I. Diakogiannis, F. Waldner, P. Caccetta, and C. Wu, “ResUNet-a: A deep learning framework for semantic segmentation of remotely sensed data,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 162, pp. 94–114, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    nnu-net: Self- adapting framework for u-net-based medical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, J. Petersen, A. Klein, D. Zimmerer, P. F. Jaeger, S. Kohl, J. Wasserthal, G. Koehler, T. Norajitra, S. Wirkert, et al., “nnu-net: Self- adapting framework for u-net-based medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10486, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    Z. Zhou, M. M. R. Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation,” in Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clin- ical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8th In...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Deep learning based multi- modal biomedical data fusion: An overview and comparative review,

    J. Duan, J. Xiong, Y . Li, and W. Ding, “Deep learning based multi- modal biomedical data fusion: An overview and comparative review,” Information Fusion, vol. 102536, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models,

    Y . Liu, K. Zhang, Y . Li, Z. Yan, C. Gao, R. Chen, Z. Yuan, Y . Huang, H. Sun, J. Gao, et al., “Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    One-prompt to segment all medical images,

    J. Wu and M. Xu, “One-prompt to segment all medical images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 11302–11312, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Medical sam 2: Segment medical images as video via segment anything model 2,

    J. Zhu, Y . Qi, and J. Wu, “Medical sam 2: Segment medical images as video via segment anything model 2,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00874, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Segment anything in medical images and videos: Benchmark and deployment,

    J. Ma, S. Kim, F. Li, M. Baharoon, R. Asakereh, H. Lyu, and B. Wang, “Segment anything in medical images and videos: Benchmark and deployment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03322, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    PAPILA: Dataset with fundus images and clinical data of both eyes of the same patient for glaucoma assessment,

    J. S ´anchez Ramos, M. Ortega, M. G. Penedo, and N. Barreira, “PAPILA: Dataset with fundus images and clinical data of both eyes of the same patient for glaucoma assessment,” NCBI, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    BUS-BRA: A breast ultrasound dataset for assessing computer-aided diagnosis systems,

    M. C. Medeiros, M. Z. do Nascimento, and G. Carneiro, “BUS-BRA: A breast ultrasound dataset for assessing computer-aided diagnosis systems,” PubMed, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Kvasir-SEG: A Segmented Polyp Dataset,

    D. Jha, P. H. Smedsrud, M. A. Riegler, P. Halvorsen, T. de Lange, D. Johansen, and H. D. Johansen, “Kvasir-SEG: A Segmented Polyp Dataset,” arXiv, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Deep Learning Framework Design for Diabetic Retinopathy Abnormalities Classification,

    R. Rani and S. K. Sahoo, “Deep Learning Framework Design for Diabetic Retinopathy Abnormalities Classification,” Semantic Scholar, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Deep-Learning Ensembles for Skin-Lesion Segmentation, Analysis, Classification: RECOD Titans at ISIC Challenge 2018,

    A. G. C. Pacheco, R. A. Krohling, A. L. D. Rossi, L. S. Oliveira, G. D. C. Cavalcanti, J. P. M. Ferreira, F. M. M. Pereira, R. Marques, S. Avila, and E. Valle, “Deep-Learning Ensembles for Skin-Lesion Segmentation, Analysis, Classification: RECOD Titans at ISIC Challenge 2018,...

    2018

  26. [34]

    M. K. Garvin, M. D. Abr `amoff, R. Kardon, S. R. Russell, X. Wu, and M. Sonka, “Multivendor Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Dataset, Observer Annotation Performance Evaluation, and Standardized Evaluation Framework for Intraretinal Cystoid Fluid Segmentation,” NCBI, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Categorized contrast enhanced mammography dataset for diagnostic and artificial intelligence research,

    J. Maia, I. C. Moreira, I. Ramos, M. J. Cardoso, and J. S. Cardoso, “Categorized contrast enhanced mammography dataset for diagnostic and artificial intelligence research,” NCBI, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    CheXmask: a large- scale dataset of anatomical segmentation masks for multi-center chest x-ray images,

    Z. Jiang, Y . Shen, Y . Jiang, Y . Ding, and Y . Ding, “CheXmask: a large- scale dataset of anatomical segmentation masks for multi-center chest x-ray images,” arXiv, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Automated measurement of fetal head circumference using 2D ultrasound images,

    T. L. A. van den Heuvel, D. de Bruijn, C. L. de Korte, and B. van Ginneken, “Automated measurement of fetal head circumference using 2D ultrasound images,” PloS one, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. e0200412, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    m2caiSeg: Semantic Segmentation of Laparoscopic Images using Convolutional Neural Net- works,

    S. Maqbool, A. Riaz, H. Sajid, and O. Hasan, “m2caiSeg: Semantic Segmentation of Laparoscopic Images using Convolutional Neural Net- works,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.10134, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Lear...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.