Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Teacher-Student Model for Detecting and Classifying Mitosis in the MIDOG 2025 Challenge

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single teacher-student UNet detects and classifies mitosis across unseen pathology domains, reporting F1 0.766 and balanced accuracy 0.84 on the MIDOG 2025 preliminary test.

desk verdict Competent MIDOG 2025 entry with credible preliminary scores, but no ablation and a questionable morphological pseudo-mask step leave the central effectiveness claim unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03614 v1 pith:P5OGV22O submitted 2025-09-03 cs.CV cs.AI

Seungho Choe , Xiaoli Qin , Abubakr Shafique , Amanda Dy , Susan Done , Dimitrios Androutsos , April Khademi This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords mitosisdetectionatypicalclassificationteacher-studentlearningsemi-supervisedsegmentationdomaingeneralizationhistopathologypseudo-masksMIDOG2025
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that mitosis detection is best treated as pixel-level segmentation inside a semi-supervised teacher-student loop, with pseudo-masks for normal nuclei providing dense supervision. It claims this approach copes with scarce mitosis annotations, heavy class imbalance, and the stain/scanner domain shifts that break most histopathology AI tools. For atypical-mitosis classification, the same segmentation encoder feeds a multi-scale CNN head, so detection and classification share one framework. On the preliminary MIDOG 2025 test set the method reports an F1 of 0.7660 for detection and a balanced accuracy of about 0.84 for classification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the frozen-teacher-supervised UNet. For Track 1 the teacher is pre-trained on PanNuke to learn nuclear morphology, then synced to the student whenever validation improves; for Track 2 the teacher's normal-nucleus pseudo-masks are hand-crafted from Macenko stain normalization, adaptive Otsu thresholding, and morphological opening. The student sees weakly and strongly augmented views of the same tile; contrastive loss aligns their encoder features, a DANN loss via gradient reversal strips domain-specific signals, and the decoder outputs four classes: background, normal nuclei, mitosis, and hard negatives. A multi-scale CNN classifier with a ResNet-152 refinement b

What would settle it

Hold out one domain from training and compare F1 with and without the normal-nucleus pseudo-mask supervision; if removing the pseudo-mask branch does not lower F1, the claimed mechanism is not doing the work. Also inspect per-domain false positives on the preliminary test set—especially the domain that dropped to 0.7319 F1—to see whether they are normal nuclei mislabeled as mitosis, which would directly test whether the pseudo-mask supervision reduced the false-positive problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a UNet-based teacher-student model with contrastive and domain-adversarial modules can simultaneously detect mitotic figures and classify atypical mitoses across domains. A frozen teacher generates online pseudo-masks—for annotated mitoses, hard negatives, and normal nuclei—while the student learns from weakly and strongly augmented views of the same image. The normal-nucleus pseudo-masks are the key addition: they convert the extreme class imbalance into a dense supervision signal and reduce false positives from non-mitotic nuclei that resemble mitoses. The multi-scale classifier head reuses the encoder features in a multi-task setting for Track 2. Th

Load-bearing premise

The training pipeline depends on pseudo-masks for normal nuclei being accurate: for Track 2 these masks are generated by stain normalization plus thresholding and morphological cleanup, and if they systematically mislabel nuclei the student model learns from noisy supervision and the reported cross-domain scores will not reproduce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single segmentation-based model can carry both detection and classification, so a deployed mitosis-scoring pipeline needs one network rather than separate detectors and classifiers.
  • Pseudo-masks for normal nuclei turn class imbalance into dense supervision, which should cut false positives from nuclei that visually mimic mitotic figures.
  • Contrastive and adversarial losses make the encoder less sensitive to stain and scanner variation, addressing the main known failure mode of AI in histopathology.
  • The reported degradation pattern—one domain drops hardest and specificity falls more than sensitivity—shows where cross-domain performance is still fragile.
  • Because the classification head reuses segmentation features, atypical-mitosis classification can be added without training a large standalone classifier, which matters when atypical examples are scarce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper states that no ablation was run; a direct test of the stated mechanism would be to remove normal-nucleus pseudo-masks, the contrastive loss, or the DANN loss one at a time and measure F1 and balanced accuracy on a held-out domain.
  • The hand-crafted normal-nucleus pseudo-mask recipe is generic enough that it could transfer to other rare-event detection problems in histology, such as Ki-67-positive cells or tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, without additional pixel annotations.
  • The specificity drop from 0.889 in-domain to 0.768 on the preliminary test suggests that per-domain calibration of the classification threshold, rather than a single fixed threshold, could recover some of the lost balanced accuracy.
  • The uneven per-domain results imply that stain-invariant features only partially close the domain gap; testing on more scanners and staining protocols would reveal whether the residual failures are systematic.
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. The paper presents a teacher–student segmentation framework for the MIDOG 2025 challenge, targeting mitosis detection (Track 1) and atypical mitosis classification (Track 2). The student UNet is trained with online pseudo-masks from a frozen teacher; for Track 1 the teacher is pretrained on PanNuke, while for Track 2 pseudo-masks are derived from classical morphological operations on the H channel after Macenko normalization. Domain generalization is pursued via contrastive learning and a domain-adversarial loss, and a multi-scale CNN classifier head consumes encoder features for Track 2. On the challenge's preliminary test set, the authors report F1 = 0.7660 for Track 1 and balanced accuracy = 0.8418 (abstract: 0.8414) for Track 2, interpreting this as evidence for the effectiveness of the unified framework.

Significance. If the reported scores are reliable, the proposed system is competitive on an externally scored preliminary test set and addresses a practically important problem, namely domain shift in mitosis detection and classification. The paper draws on multiple public datasets and follows the challenge protocol, which aids reproducibility. Its main strengths are the external evaluation, the combination of detection and classification in one framework, and the explicit use of semi-supervised pseudo-masks to mitigate label scarcity. However, the causal claims in the abstract and conclusion go beyond the experiments because no ablation or baseline is reported, and the pseudo-mask generation for Track 2 has a plausible failure mode that is not analyzed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results / Discussion] No ablation or baseline is reported. Tables 3 and 4 report only the final system, so the abstract's claim that the results 'demonstrat[e] the effectiveness of integrating segmentation-based detection and classification into a unified framework' is unsupported. The Discussion itself concedes 'this study is limited by the absence of a detailed ablation analysis to quantify the contribution of each component.' To support the headline claim, the paper needs at least a plain-UNet baseline and one-factor ablations for the pseudo-mask supervision, the contrastive/DANN losses, and the multi-scale classifier head.
  2. [Frozen Teacher Module / Loss Functions] For Track 2, pseudo-masks are derived from the H channel of Macenko-normalized images via Gaussian blur, adaptive Otsu thresholding, and morphological opening. The loss description says 'annotated mitosis and hard negatives were combined with teacher-generated pseudo masks for normal nuclei,' but it does not state that annotated mitotic figures are excluded from the pseudo-mask. Since mitotic figures are hematoxylin-dense, they are likely to be included in the thresholded normal-nucleus mask. If so, Lsemi would penalize correct mitosis predictions and could suppress the detection and classification targets. Please specify the mask construction precisely, exclude annotated mitosis/hard-negative pixels from the pseudo-mask if they are not already excluded, or provide empirical evidence that this contamination does not occur.
  3. [Table 2 / Dataset] The dataset counts are internally inconsistent. Summing the rows in Table 2 gives 3,720 + 11,939 + 3,012 = 18,671 total, not 15,668; the normal column sums to 13,458, not 12,137; the atypical column sums to 3,958, not 3,551. The text says 1,255 Octopath images were excluded, but Table 2 still lists Octopath as 3,012 total. Either the table or the text is wrong, and the total counts do not add up. This must be corrected because the dataset composition is central to reproducing the Track 2 results.
  4. [Results / Tables 3 and 4] The preliminary test set consists of only 20 cases (four domains, five cases per domain), and the paper reports only point estimates. No confidence intervals, per-case scores, or statistical comparison are given. The per-domain F1 values in Table 3 range from 0.7319 to 0.8649, so the overall difference between in-domain (0.7896) and preliminary (0.7660) performance may be within sampling variability. Please report per-case results or bootstrap confidence intervals, or explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the interpretation of the preliminary scores.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Results] The abstract states balanced accuracy 0.8414 for Track 2, while Table 4 and the Results text report 0.8418. Please use one consistent value.
  2. [Introduction / Materials] The phrase 'UNet segmentation backbone integrates domain generalization modules' is missing 'that' or 'which'; it should read 'backbone that integrates'.
  3. [Discussion] There is a subject-verb agreement error: 'can effectively improves' should be 'can effectively improve'.
  4. [Figure 1] The labels 'Enconder T', 'Deconder T', and 'Shared netwrk' contain typos; they should be 'Encoder T', 'Decoder T', and 'Shared network'.
  5. [Table 3] The header 'MIDOG Pre. (overall)' is unclear. Please expand to 'Preliminary (overall)' and clarify that the 'MIDOG' column is the in-domain test.
  6. [Materials and Methods / Track 2] The sentence '5 cases per each domain' should be '5 cases per domain'. Also, the relationship between the filtered Octopath count and Table 2 should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Localized threshold selection inflates in-domain BA; central external result is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, Track 2 (threshold selection), p.3]
    "For the in-domain test, the choice of classification threshold was critical, as inappropriate thresholds could substantially degrade BA. In our model, the optimal threshold was determined as 0.590, and BA was reported at this operating point. At this threshold, the model achieved a BA of 0.8760, with sensitivity of 0.8627 and specificity of 0.8893"

    The in-domain BA is evaluated on the same split used to select the threshold. The threshold is a free parameter tuned to maximize BA on that split, so the reported 0.8760 BA is a resubstitution optimum rather than an independent estimate; the metric is forced by the fitting procedure. This is a mild fitted-input-called-prediction effect. It does not apply to the preliminary test BA of 0.8418, which was evaluated on an external challenge set, so the central empirical claim remains independent.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical score on the MIDOG 2025 preliminary test set, so it is externally benchmarked and does not reduce to a self-citation or to a mathematical identity. The teacher-student loop is standard self-training/consistency regularization, not a logical circle. The only circular-adjacent issue is the Track 2 in-domain balanced accuracy: the decision threshold is selected on the same in-domain test split and then the BA is reported at that optimum, which is a localized fitted-parameter effect. The Discussion's admission that no ablation was performed weakens the causal claim that specific components (pseudo-masks, contrastive, DANN, multi-scale classifier) are responsible for the results, but that is a lack of evidence, not circularity. No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is load-bearing. Overall circularity is negligible; score reflects the minor threshold-selection inflation.

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

The central method rests on a handful of hand-chosen hyperparameters and on the reliability of pseudo-mask supervision and externally provided test labels. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Classification threshold for Track 2 = 0.590
    Chosen on in-domain validation to maximize balanced accuracy; the paper reports BA at this operating point, so the metric depends on this fitted value.
  • Loss weight lambda_1 (point CE) = 0.4 (Track 1), 0.5 (Track 2)
    Hand-chosen hyperparameter in L_semi; affects balance between point-based CE and other losses.
  • Loss weight lambda_2 (classification loss) = 0 (Track 1), 1 (Track 2)
    Hand-chosen; enables or disables multi-task classification loss.
  • Domain generalization loss weights = 0.5 for L_cont, 0.3 for L_Domain
    Hand-chosen fixed weights in L_DG; no sensitivity analysis provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Teacher-generated pseudo-masks for normal nuclei are accurate enough to supervise the student model.
    In Track 2 these masks come from Macenko H channel, Gaussian blur, Otsu thresholding, and morphological opening (Frozen Teacher Module section). If they mislabel nuclei, the semi-supervised segmentation loss teaches the student incorrect features.
  • domain assumption The MIDOG 2025 preliminary test set is a fair external evaluation and the authors did not train on it.
    The results section treats the preliminary set as held out. This is a protocol assumption from the challenge (reference 28), not verified independently.
  • domain assumption Centroid and bounding-box annotations in TUPAC16, MIDOG++, and MITOS datasets can be converted to reliable pixel-level masks for segmentation training.
    The paper states that these datasets were used for semi-supervised training of a pixel-level segmentation model, but does not describe the conversion from points or boxes to masks, leaving an unstated labeling step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teacher-Student Model for Detecting and Classifying Mitosis in the MIDOG 2025 Challenge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5OGV22O

@misc{pith2026250903614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teacher-Student Model for Detecting and Classifying Mitosis in the MIDOG 2025 Challenge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5OGV22O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03614}
}
read the original abstract

Counting mitotic figures is time-intensive for pathologists and leads to inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) promises a solution by automatically detecting mitotic figures while maintaining decision consistency. However, AI tools are susceptible to domain shift, where a significant drop in performance can occur due to differences in the training and testing sets, including morphological diversity between organs, species, and variations in staining protocols. Furthermore, the number of mitoses is much less than the count of normal nuclei, which introduces severely imbalanced data for the detection task. In this work, we formulate mitosis detection as a pixel-level segmentation and propose a teacher-student model that simultaneously addresses mitosis detection (Track 1) and atypical mitosis classification (Track 2). Our method is based on a UNet segmentation backbone that integrates domain generalization modules, namely contrastive representation learning and domain-adversarial training. A teacher-student strategy is employed to generate pixel-level pseudo-masks not only for annotated mitoses and hard negatives but also for normal nuclei, thereby enhancing feature discrimination and improving robustness against domain shift. For the classification task, we introduce a multi-scale CNN classifier that leverages feature maps from the segmentation model within a multi-task learning paradigm. On the preliminary test set, the algorithm achieved an F1 score of 0.7660 in Track 1 and balanced accuracy of 0.8414 in Track 2, demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating segmentation-based detection and classification into a unified framework for robust mitosis analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall pipeline of the proposed semi-supervised framework. The model employs a UNet backbone with attention, contrastive, and domain-adversarial modules for domain generalization. A frozen teacher provides online pseudo-masks that supervise the student decoder via a semi-supervised loss. In addition, a multi-scale classifier head processes encoder feature maps for atypical mitotic figure classification. (Track 2 on… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer: a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years.British journal of cancer, 11(3):359, 1957

    HJG Bloom and WW13499785 Richardson. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer: a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years.British journal of cancer, 11(3):359, 1957

    work page 1957

  2. [2]

    Mitosis domain generalization in histopathology images -- The MIDOG challenge

    Marc Aubreville, Nikolas Stathonikos, Christof A Bertram, Robert Klopleisch, Natalie ter Hoeve, Francesco Ciompi, Frauke Wilm, Christian Marzahl, Taryn A Donovan, Andreas Maier, et al. Mitosis domain generalization in histopathology images–the midog challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03742, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Mitosis domain generalization challenge 2022

    Marc Aubreville, Christof Bertram, Katharina Breininger, Samir Jabari, Nikolas Stathonikos, and Mitko Veta. Mitosis domain generalization challenge 2022. In 25th International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI 2022),

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology

    Karin Stacke, Gabriel Eilertsen, Jonas Unger, and Claes Lundström. Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 25(2):325–336, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raf- fel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 33:596–608, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Whole-slide mitosis detection in h&e breast histology using phh3 as a reference to train distilled stain- invariant convolutional networks

    David Tellez, Maschenka Balkenhol, Irene Otte-Höller, Rob Van De Loo, Rob Vogels, Peter Bult, Carla Wauters, Willem Vreuls, Suzanne Mol, Nico Karssemeijer, et al. Whole-slide mitosis detection in h&e breast histology using phh3 as a reference to train distilled stain- invariant convolutional networks. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 37(9):2126–2136, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Challenging mitosis detection algorithms: Global labels al- low centroid localization

    Claudio Fernandez-Martín, Umay Kiraz, Julio Silva-Rodríguez, Sandra Morales, Emiel AM Janssen, and Valery Naranjo. Challenging mitosis detection algorithms: Global labels al- low centroid localization. In International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning, pages 482–490. Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A comprehensive multi-domain dataset for mitotic figure detection

    Marc Aubreville, Frauke Wilm, Nikolas Stathonikos, Katharina Breininger, Taryn A Donovan, Samir Jabari, Mitko Veta, Jonathan Ganz, Jonas Ammeling, Paul J van Diest, et al. A comprehensive multi-domain dataset for mitotic figure detection. Scientific data, 10(1):484, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    A completely annotated whole slide image dataset of canine breast cancer to aid human breast cancer research

    Marc Aubreville, Christof A Bertram, Taryn A Donovan, Christian Marzahl, Andreas Maier, and Robert Klopfleisch. A completely annotated whole slide image dataset of canine breast cancer to aid human breast cancer research. Scientific data, 7(1):417, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    A large-scale dataset for mitotic figure assessment on whole slide images of canine cutaneous mast cell tumor

    Christof A Bertram, Marc Aubreville, Christian Marzahl, Andreas Maier, and Robert Klopfleisch. A large-scale dataset for mitotic figure assessment on whole slide images of canine cutaneous mast cell tumor. Scientific data, 6(1):274, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Pannuke: an open pan-cancer histology dataset for nuclei instance segmentation and clas- sification

    Jevgenij Gamper, Navid Alemi Koohbanani, Ksenija Benet, Ali Khuram, and Nasir Rajpoot. Pannuke: an open pan-cancer histology dataset for nuclei instance segmentation and clas- sification. In European congress on digital pathology, pages 11–19. Springer, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Pre- dicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: the tupac16 challenge

    Mitko Veta, Yujing J Heng, Nikolas Stathonikos, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Francisco Beca, Thomas Wollmann, Karl Rohr, Manan A Shah, Dayong Wang, Mikael Rousson, et al. Pre- dicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: the tupac16 challenge. Medical image analysi...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Are pathologist-defined labels reproducible? com- parison of the tupac16 mitotic figure dataset with an alternative set of labels

    Christof A Bertram, Mitko Veta, Christian Marzahl, Nikolas Stathonikos, Andreas Maier, Robert Klopfleisch, and Marc Aubreville. Are pathologist-defined labels reproducible? com- parison of the tupac16 mitotic figure dataset with an alternative set of labels. InInterpretable an...

    2020

  6. [14]

    His- tologic dataset of normal and atypical mitotic figures on human breast cancer (ami-br)

    Christof A Bertram, Viktoria Weiss, Taryn A Donovan, Sweta Banerjee, Thomas Conrad, Jonas Ammeling, Robert Klopfleisch, Christopher Kaltenecker, and Marc Aubreville. His- tologic dataset of normal and atypical mitotic figures on human breast cancer (ami-br). In BVM Workshop, p...

    2025

  7. [15]

    A dataset of atypical vs normal mitoses classification for midog - 2025, April 2025

    Viktoria Weiss, Sweta Banerjee, Taryn Donovan, Thomas Conrad, Robert Klopfleisch, Jonas Ammeling, Christopher Kaltenecker, Dominik Hirling, Mitko Veta, Nikolas Stathonikos, Peter Horvath, Katharina Breininger, Marc Aubreville, and Christof Bertram. A dataset of atypical vs nor...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Omg-octo atypical: A refinement of the original omg-octo database to incorporate atypical mitoses, July 2025

    Zhuoyan Shen, Maria Andreia Hawkins, Esther Baer, Konstantin Bräutigam, and Charles- Antoine Collins Fekete. Omg-octo atypical: A refinement of the original omg-octo database to incorporate atypical mitoses, July 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module

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

    2018

  11. [19]

    A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis

    Marc Macenko, Marc Niethammer, James S Marron, David Borland, John T Woosley, Xi- aojun Guan, Charles Schmitt, and Nancy E Thomas. A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis. In 2009 IEEE international symposium on biomedical imag- ing: from nano to ma...

    2009

  12. [20]

    A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms

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

    1975

  13. [21]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597–1607. PmLR, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Domain-adversarial training of neu- ral networks

    Y aroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, François Laviolette, Mario March, and Victor Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neu- ral networks. Journal of machine learning research, 17(59):1–35, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation

    Y aroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1180–1189. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmen- tations

    Carole H Sudre, Wenqi Li, Tom Vercauteren, Sebastien Ourselin, and M Jorge Cardoso. Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmen- tations. In International Workshop on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis , pages 240–248. Springer, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    What’s the point: Seman- tic segmentation with point supervision

    Amy Bearman, Olga Russakovsky, Vittorio Ferrari, and Li Fei-Fei. What’s the point: Seman- tic segmentation with point supervision. In European conference on computer vision, pages 549–565. Springer, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Bertram, Katharina Breininger, Dominik Hirling, Peter Horvath, Nikolas Stathonikos, and Mitko Veta

    Jonas Ammeling, Marc Aubreville, Sweta Banerjee, Christof A. Bertram, Katharina Breininger, Dominik Hirling, Peter Horvath, Nikolas Stathonikos, and Mitko Veta. Mitosis Do- main Generalization Challenge 2025. Zenodo, March 2025. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15077361. 4 | Seungho Choe e...

    2025 doi

  21. [2022]

    doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6362337

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.