Medical Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Pretrain

Anvar Kurmukov; David Li; Mikhail Belyaev; Mikhail Goncharov; Roman Sokolov

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Medical Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Pretrain

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A diffusion-based pretraining procedure conditioned on anatomical body-part coordinates produces voxel-level features for 3D CT that outperform restorative pretraining baselines by 7.5% and match the contrastive vox2vec method at an…

desk verdict 3D diffusion pretraining for CT segmentation is a real result buried under an overstated abstract: the anatomical-guidance novelty is unproven, 'competitive with vox2vec' is contradicted by the paper's own tables, and the evaluation has hygiene issues; worth a serious referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19265 v1 pith:RTHKULIR submitted 2025-01-31 cs.CV cs.LG

David Li , Anvar Kurmukov , Mikhail Goncharov , Roman Sokolov , Mikhail Belyaev This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LG

keywords diffusionpretrainingself-supervisedlearning3DmedicalimagesegmentationCTorganbodypartregressorvoxel-levelrepresentationnon-linearprobingcontrastive

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 proposes a self-supervised pretraining method for 3D medical image segmentation: train a diffusion model to denoise CT image patches, and add a voxel-wise body-part coordinate map as extra conditioning. The authors claim these conditions produce spatially aware, voxel-level feature representations that, when frozen and probed with a small non-linear head, beat previous restorative pretraining methods by 7.5% and are competitive with the contrastive vox2vec approach, reaching an average Dice of 67.8 on 13-organ segmentation. The motivation is that generative, non-contrastive pretraining can give the fine-grained representation quality usually attributed to contrastive learning, without needing paired views.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a conditioned denoising diffusion pretraining on 3D CT patches: a Feature Pyramid Network learns to predict noise from a noised patch concatenated channel-wise with a dense body-part coordinate map predicted by a pretrained Body Part Regressor. This 'adaptive pretrain' conditioning is designed to restore global anatomical geometry lost in patch-based training. At evaluation, the FPN's multi-scale feature maps at three diffusion timesteps (10, 30, and 60) are extracted from the frozen pretrained network and passed to a non-linear probing head for organ segmentation. The paper's ablations show that segmentation quality peaks around ten denoising steps for medium and small organs and degrades for larger steps, supporting the choice of an ensemble of small timesteps.

What would settle it

Run a controlled ablation with matched random seeds that compares DDPMBPR-FPN against DDPM-FPN on both BTCV and FLARE, and also swaps the learned body-part regressor for a fixed linear coordinate ramp; if the ramp matches the regressor's performance or the regressor's gain is not consistent across datasets, the anatomical-guidance claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that anatomically guided diffusion-based pretraining yields informative voxel-level features for 3D CT segmentation. The pretraining task is a conditioned denoising diffusion process on 128x128x32 patches, where the noise-prediction FPN receives a dense coordinate map from a separately trained body-part regressor. After pretraining, features from three diffusion timesteps (10, 30, 60) are frozen and fed into a non-linear probing head. The paper reports an average Dice of 67.8 on BTCV, surpassing the restorative baselines SwinUNETR and TransVW and trailing the contrastive vox2vec baseline; on the transfer dataset FLARE the same pretrained features perform competitively.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that conditioning the diffusion pretraining on body-part coordinate maps improves downstream segmentation; if the learned coordinate guidance has no consistent effect, the contribution reduces to plain 3D diffusion pretraining, which does not beat the contrastive baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Generative diffusion pretraining can serve as a substitute for contrastive learning when constructing contrastive pairs is difficult, as in dense 3D medical imaging.
Extracting features from multiple small diffusion timesteps rather than a single one gives better downstream segmentation, suggesting a practical recipe for using pretrained diffusion models.
The protocol needs labels only for a small probing head after freezing the backbone, so multi-organ segmentation could be done with substantially less annotation effort.
The reported transfer from BTCV to FLARE indicates features pretrained on diverse CT scans generalize to new datasets without retraining the backbone.

Reading between the lines

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

Because BPR conditioning improves BTCV but hurts FLARE, the anatomical guidance may help only when the test field of view matches the coordinate distribution seen in pretraining; an extension would be to test on datasets with unusual body-region coverage.
The paper does not isolate whether the BPR's benefit comes from the semantic coordinates or simply from feeding extra inputs; a control that replaces the learned coordinates with a fixed linear coordinate ramp would separate these.
The timestep ablation is done only on BTCV, so the optimal (10, 30, 60) schedule may be dataset-specific; a per-dataset timestep search on FLARE could test this.
A linear probing evaluation would be a stricter test of whether the learned representations are genuinely linear-friendly; the paper reports only non-linear probing.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know before reading further. One: the paper contains a real result — a frozen FPN trained for DDPM denoising on 3D CT patches produces features that beat the restorative baselines on BTCV by a wide margin (66.0 vs SwinUNETR's 58.5, TransVW's 23.5) and transfer decently to FLARE. That is a genuine, useful data point for 3D medical SSL, and it deserves credit. Two: the advertised novelty and the abstract's headline claims do not survive close reading.

What is genuinely new: the 3D medical adaptation of diffusion-as-pretraining, the body-part-regressor (BPR) coordinate conditioning as a way to inject global context into patch-based training, and the nonlinear-probing comparison against vox2vec and SwinUNETR. The hypothesis in Section 3.2 is sensible, and the baseline set is fair even though vox2vec is the authors' own work.

The soft spots, in order of weight. First, the abstract's 'competitive with vox2vec' is contradicted by the paper's own tables: vox2vec leads by 7.7 Dice on BTCV and 8.5 on FLARE. The conclusion's 'second only to vox2vec' is accurate; the abstract is just loose. The 7.5% figure is actually DDPM-FPN (no BPR) versus SwinUNETR on BTCV, not the proposed method as the abstract implies. Second, the central novelty — anatomical guidance — is unproven: BPR conditioning helps on BTCV (+1.8) but hurts on FLARE (−1.9), and there are no error bars or seeds anywhere. Either difference could be noise. If it is, the paper reduces to plain 3D diffusion pretraining, a legitimate but incremental extension of Baranchuk et al. Third, evaluation hygiene: timesteps were chosen on the BTCV evaluation set (Section 4.1) before reporting BTCV numbers, so the 67.8 headline is partly test-set-tuned. And FLARE [12] is listed in both the pretraining corpus and the evaluation benchmark, with no statement that the 50 evaluation scans were excluded; that needs explicit clarification. Minor items: no code, single-run results, 'six datasets' with five citations, and rough prose ('timestemps', 'pretein').

Bottom line: the core diffusion-pretraining result is probably real and worth having in the literature, but the paper as written overstates its case. It deserves a serious referee — major revision, not desk reject. The revision needs an honest abstract, multi-seed results, a validation-based timestep choice, a BPR ablation with significance testing, and a clear statement on FLARE overlap. I wouldn't cite it as-is.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a self-supervised pretraining method for 3D CT image segmentation based on a denoising diffusion objective on image patches, with an additional anatomical conditioning stream from a pretrained Body Part Regressor (BPR) that predicts dense coordinate maps. The frozen pretrained FPN is evaluated by training a nonlinear probing head on the BTCV and FLARE datasets. The reported results show DDPMBPR-FPN reaching 67.8 average Dice on BTCV and 75.6 on FLARE, above the TransVW and SwinUNETR baselines but below the vox2vec-FPN contrastive baseline. The contribution is framed as evidence that non-contrastive diffusion pretraining can produce informative voxel-level representations, with anatomical guidance as the main novelty.

Significance. The paper's potential contribution is to demonstrate a non-contrastive, diffusion-based route to voxel-level representations for 3D medical imaging, with a mechanism for injecting global anatomical context into patch-based training. The use of public datasets and multiple baselines is a strength, as is the explicit probing protocol. However, the evidence for the anatomical guidance mechanism is currently mixed, and the reported gap to the state-of-the-art contrastive baseline is substantial. The significance is therefore conditional on additional validation and on a more measured presentation of the claims.

major comments (4)

[4.2, Tables 1 and 2] The benefit of the proposed BPR conditioning is not consistent across evaluation sets. On BTCV, DDPMBPR-FPN (67.8) exceeds DDPM-FPN (66.0), but on FLARE it is worse (75.6 vs 77.5). Because the only architectural difference is the concatenated BPR coordinate maps (Section 3.2), this pattern fails to support the 'anatomically guided' novelty. No error bars, number of seeds, or statistical tests are reported, so the +/-1.8-1.9 point differences cannot be distinguished from noise. The authors should either supply multi-seed results with significance tests or restrict the central claim to the settings where the guidance helps.
[Abstract; Section 5] The abstract's statement that the method 'is competitive with the state-of-the-art contrastive pretraining approach' is not supported by the tables. On BTCV, vox2vec-FPN is 75.5 vs 67.8 for DDPMBPR-FPN; on FLARE, 84.1 vs 75.6. These 7.7 and 8.5 Dice-point gaps are large in this evaluation protocol. In addition, the stated 7.5% improvement over restorative methods does not correspond to any explicit comparison in the tables: on FLARE, DDPMBPR-FPN is actually below DDPM-FPN. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to match the reported numbers and clarify which baselines are considered restorative.
[4.1] The timestep selection procedure is performed on the BTCV evaluation set. The text states that the timesteps were chosen based on the segmentation results on BTCV with nonlinear probing; the same BTCV results are then reported in Table 1. Without a separate validation split, the headline 67.8 value is affected by selection on the test set. Please use a validation set for timestep selection or report results across the full range, and state the impact of this choice on the final numbers.
[3.2, 3.5] The BPR model is central to the method, but its design and training are not specified. No architecture, input resolution, training set, or quantitative measure of coordinate prediction quality is given, so the reader cannot assess whether the conditioning signal is meaningful. Moreover, no single result in Tables 1 and 2 is accompanied by a standard deviation or significance test, which is particularly problematic for the small margins observed. Provide full details and multi-seed statistics.

minor comments (6)

[3.1] The word 'pretrein' should be 'pretrain', and 'on the inference' should be 'at inference'.
[4.1] The section title contains the typo 'Timestemps', and the text inconsistently uses both 'timestamps' and 'timesteps'.
[Table 2] The column header 'A VG' should be 'AVG'; in Table 1, several numbers contain extra spaces (e.g., '31 .5'), which should be cleaned up.
[References] References [9] and [10] are incomplete, with missing publication venues, years, and full author lists; please provide complete bibliographic information.
[3.3] The architecture description ('adapted attention architecture linear in the input of the image') is not specific enough for reproducibility; please detail the attention variants and their placement in the FPN, including channel configurations.
[3.5] Training hyperparameters are incomplete: 3000 epochs and batch size 1 are given, but learning rate schedule, gradient clipping, and total training time are omitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation loop.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: diffusion pretraining with body-part-coordinate conditioning yields informative frozen features for 3D segmentation. The derivation chain is (i) pretrain an FPN as a denoising diffusion model on CT patches, optionally concatenating a dense coordinate map from a separately trained Body Part Regressor; (ii) freeze the FPN and train a nonlinear probe on downstream organ labels; (iii) measure Dice. No step defines the reported Dice in terms of the pretraining loss or the BPR output by construction. The BPR map is an input to the diffusion network, not a mask or label that forces the segmentation; the downstream probe is trained on labels, so the 67.8 Dice is measured, not derived. The timestep selection in §4.1 ('Based on results of experiments, we selected 3 different timesteps') is performed on BTCV and then Table 1 reports BTCV; this is test-set tuning and a threat to the headline number, but it does not make the number equal to an input by construction. The vox2vec baseline [5] is prior work by overlapping authors and 'all hyperparameters similar to [5]' is a shared-protocol choice; the citation is not used to derive the method's validity. The inconsistent BPR effect across BTCV/FLARE is a robustness concern, not circularity. Hence no circular step is exhibited; score 0.

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

No new physical entities or invented quantities are introduced. The BPR coordinate map comes from prior work [9]. The main free choices are the timesteps, patch size, and spacing, all of which affect the pretraining task and the final Dice numbers.

free parameters (3)

Diffusion timesteps used for probing = 10, 30, 60
Selected in Section 4.1 from the BTCV ablation in Fig. 2; no held-out validation split is described, so the choice may be tuned to the evaluation set.
Patch size = (128, 128, 32)
Chosen in Section 3.5; defines the pretraining task and the amount of global context the model sees per patch.
Resampled spacing = (1, 1, 2) mm
Chosen in Section 3.5; rescaling all CT data to this spacing changes organ sizes and the coordinate conditioning.

assumptions (4)

standard math The DDPM forward process q(xt|x0) = N(xt|sqrt(alpha_t)x0, (1-alpha_t)I) with a fixed noise schedule is a valid way to create noisy inputs for representation learning.
Invoked in Section 3.4 and Fig. 1; this is standard diffusion background from [7].
domain assumption Frozen features from a denoiser trained to predict noise on CT patches are informative for dense organ segmentation.
Invoked in Sections 3.4 and 4.2; this is the core hypothesis borrowed from [8] and tested empirically.
domain assumption Pretraining on six thoracic/chest CT datasets transfers to abdominal segmentation on BTCV and FLARE.
Invoked in Section 3.5; the pretraining distribution is chest/thoracic while downstream evaluation is abdominal, so transfer is assumed.
domain assumption Body-part coordinate maps from the BPR regressor provide meaningful spatial conditioning without introducing a harmful distribution shift.
Invoked in Section 3.2; the paper's own FLARE results weaken this assumption, since BPR lowers the FLARE Dice score.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Medical Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Pretrain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTHKULIR

@misc{pith2026250119265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Medical Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Pretrain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTHKULIR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19265}
}

abstract

Recent advances in deep learning have shown that learning robust feature representations is critical for the success of many computer vision tasks, including medical image segmentation. In particular, both transformer and convolutional-based architectures have benefit from leveraging pretext tasks for pretraining. However, the adoption of pretext tasks in 3D medical imaging has been less explored and remains a challenge, especially in the context of learning generalizable feature representations. We propose a novel pretraining strategy using diffusion models with anatomical guidance, tailored to the intricacies of 3D medical image data. We introduce an auxiliary diffusion process to pretrain a model that produce generalizable feature representations, useful for a variety of downstream segmentation tasks. We employ an additional model that predicts 3D universal body-part coordinates, providing guidance during the diffusion process and improving spatial awareness in generated representations. This approach not only aids in resolving localization inaccuracies but also enriches the model's ability to understand complex anatomical structures. Empirical validation on a 13-class organ segmentation task demonstrate the effectiveness of our pretraining technique. It surpasses existing restorative pretraining methods in 3D medical image segmentation by $7.5\%$, and is competitive with the state-of-the-art contrastive pretraining approach, achieving an average Dice coefficient of 67.8 in a non-linear evaluation scenario.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[12]

Transferable visual words: Exploiting the se- mantics of anatomical patterns for self-supervised learn- ing,

Fatemeh Haghighi, Mohammad Reza Hosseinzadeh Taher, Zongwei Zhou, Michael B Gotway, and Jianming Liang, “Transferable visual words: Exploiting the se- mantics of anatomical patterns for self-supervised learn- ing,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2857–2868, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

It incurs high annotation costs but also leads to models that often suffer from poor generaliza- tion to new data sources

INTRODUCTION Medical image segmentation has traditionally relied on super- vised learning paradigms, which, despite their efficacy, come with notable drawbacks. It incurs high annotation costs but also leads to models that often suffer from poor generaliza- tion to new data sources. Representation learning via self- supervision (SSL) has emerged as a robu...

work page
[2]

We propose an anatomically guided diffusion-based pre- training procedure designed to produce informative fea- ture representations for 3D images sourced from com- puted tomography

work page
[3]

Medical Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Pretrain

Through rigorous evaluation we demonstrate that infor- mative voxel-level feature representations can be achieved not only through contrastive procedures, but also via non- contrastive approaches, resulting in a Dice coefficient of 67.8 in a non-linear probing scenario on a organs’ seg- mentation task. arXiv:2501.19265v1 [cs.CV] 31 Jan 2025 Fig. 1 . Model...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

RELA TED WORK 2.1. Self-supervised pretraining Self-supervised methods in medical imaging have evolved from basic pretext tasks, such as rotation and patch posi- tion prediction [2], to advanced methods like restorative autoencoders [3, 4], patch-level and voxel-level contrastive embedding techniques [4, 5]. Contrastive methods rely on juxtaposing differe...

work page
[5]

Pretrain As a pretrein task, we use the image generation task, but due to the specific domain, several problems arise

METHODS 3.1. Pretrain As a pretrein task, we use the image generation task, but due to the specific domain, several problems arise. The original medical images have too high resolution, for certainty , we de- note them H, W, D, so we divided them into patches, i.e. we taught diffusion models to generate patches of some specific size h, w, d.On the inferen...

work page
[6]

Timestemps evaluation We investigated which timestamps are best suited for our task

RESULTS 4.1. Timestemps evaluation We investigated which timestamps are best suited for our task. We evaluated our pre-trained model for the segmentation problem of 13 classes for the BTCV dataset with nonlinear probing. We divided the classes into small, medium and large in size to analyze how well the model takes the semantics of data of various sizes. ...

work page
[7]

CONCLUSION In conclusion, this study introduces an innovative pretrain- ing strategy utilizing diffusion models guided by anatomical insights for enhancing 3D medical image segmentation. By integrating an auxiliary diffusion process and a model pre- dicting universal 3D body-part coordinates, our approach ef- fectively generates generalizable feature repr...

work page

Show all 25 references

[8]

Ethical approval was not required as confirmed by the license attached with the open access data

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS This research study was conducted retrospectively using hu- man subject data made available in open access by [16, 12]. Ethical approval was not required as confirmed by the license attached with the open access data
[9]

The au- thors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No funding was received for conducting this study. The au- thors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose
[10]

Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Pi- otr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 16000–16009

2022
[11]

3d self-supervised methods for medical imaging,

Aiham Taleb, Winfried Loetzsch, Noel Danz, Julius Severin, Thomas Gaertner, Benjamin Bergner, and Christoph Lippert, “3d self-supervised methods for medical imaging,” Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 33, pp. 18158–18172, 2020

2020
[13]

Self-supervised pre-training of swin transformers for 3d medical image analysis,

Yucheng Tang, Dong Yang, Wenqi Li, Holger R Roth, Bennett Landman, Daguang Xu, Vishwesh Nath, and Ali Hatamizadeh, “Self-supervised pre-training of swin transformers for 3d medical image analysis,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Re...

2022
[14]

vox2vec: A framework for self-supervised contrastive learning of voxel-level representations in medical images,

Mikhail Goncharov, Vera Soboleva, Anvar Kurmukov, Maxim Pisov, and Mikhail Belyaev, “vox2vec: A framework for self-supervised contrastive learning of voxel-level representations in medical images,” in In- ternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted ...

2023
[15]

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 Brain- lesion Workshop. Springer, 2021, pp. 272–284

2021
[16]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural in- formation processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

2020
[17]

Label- efficient semantic segmentation with diffusion models,

Dmitry Baranchuk, Ivan Rubachev, Andrey V oynov, Valentin Khrulkov, and Artem Babenko, “Label- efficient semantic segmentation with diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03126, 2021

2021 arXiv
[18]

Unsupervised body part regression via spatially self-ordering convolu- tional neural networks,

Ronald M. Summers Ke Yan, Le Lu, “Unsupervised body part regression via spatially self-ordering convolu- tional neural networks,”
[19]

Linear attention mechanism: An efficient attention for semantic segmentation,

Chenxi Duan Rui Li, Jianlin Su and Shunyi Zheng, “Linear attention mechanism: An efficient attention for semantic segmentation,”
[20]

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

Yuanfeng Ji, Haotian Bai, Chongjian Ge, Jie Yang, Ye Zhu, Ruimao Zhang, Zhen Li, Lingyan Zhanng, Wanling Ma, Xiang Wan, et al., “Amos: A large-scale abdominal multi-organ benchmark for versatile medical image segmentation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vo...

2022
[21]

Fast and low-gpu-memory abdomen ct organ segmentation: the flare challenge,

Jun Ma, Yao Zhang, Song Gu, Xingle An, Zhihe Wang, Cheng Ge, Congcong Wang, Fan Zhang, Yu Wang, Yi- nan Xu, et al., “Fast and low-gpu-memory abdomen ct organ segmentation: the flare challenge,” Medical Im- age Analysis, vol. 82, pp. 102616, 2022

2022
[22]

Data from the national lung screening trial (nlst),

“Data from the national lung screening trial (nlst),” 2013

2013
[23]

Data from nsclc-radiomics,

HJWL Aerts, E Rios Velazquez, RT Leijenaar, Chintan Parmar, Patrick Grossmann, S Cavalho, Johan Bussink, Ren´e Monshouwer, Benjamin Haibe-Kains, Derek Ri- etveld, et al., “Data from nsclc-radiomics,” The cancer imaging archive, 2015

2015
[24]

The lung image database consortium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): a completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans,

Samuel G Armato III, Geoffrey McLennan, Luc Bidaut, Michael F McNitt-Gray, Charles R Meyer, Anthony P Reeves, Binsheng Zhao, Denise R Aberle, Claudia I Henschke, Eric A Hoffman, et al., “The lung image database consortium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): a...

2011
[25]

Miccai multi- atlas labeling beyond the cranial vault–workshop and challenge,

Bennett Landman, Zhoubing Xu, J Igelsias, Martin Styner, T Langerak, and Arno Klein, “Miccai multi- atlas labeling beyond the cranial vault–workshop and challenge,” in Proc. MICCAI Multi-Atlas Labeling Be- yond Cranial V ault—Workshop Challenge, 2015, vol. 5, p. 12

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

Transferable visual words: Exploiting the se- mantics of anatomical patterns for self-supervised learn- ing,

Fatemeh Haghighi, Mohammad Reza Hosseinzadeh Taher, Zongwei Zhou, Michael B Gotway, and Jianming Liang, “Transferable visual words: Exploiting the se- mantics of anatomical patterns for self-supervised learn- ing,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2857–2868, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

It incurs high annotation costs but also leads to models that often suffer from poor generaliza- tion to new data sources

INTRODUCTION Medical image segmentation has traditionally relied on super- vised learning paradigms, which, despite their efficacy, come with notable drawbacks. It incurs high annotation costs but also leads to models that often suffer from poor generaliza- tion to new data sources. Representation learning via self- supervision (SSL) has emerged as a robu...

work page

[3] [2]

We propose an anatomically guided diffusion-based pre- training procedure designed to produce informative fea- ture representations for 3D images sourced from com- puted tomography

work page

[4] [3]

Medical Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Pretrain

Through rigorous evaluation we demonstrate that infor- mative voxel-level feature representations can be achieved not only through contrastive procedures, but also via non- contrastive approaches, resulting in a Dice coefficient of 67.8 in a non-linear probing scenario on a organs’ seg- mentation task. arXiv:2501.19265v1 [cs.CV] 31 Jan 2025 Fig. 1 . Model...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[5] [4]

RELA TED WORK 2.1. Self-supervised pretraining Self-supervised methods in medical imaging have evolved from basic pretext tasks, such as rotation and patch posi- tion prediction [2], to advanced methods like restorative autoencoders [3, 4], patch-level and voxel-level contrastive embedding techniques [4, 5]. Contrastive methods rely on juxtaposing differe...

work page

[6] [5]

Pretrain As a pretrein task, we use the image generation task, but due to the specific domain, several problems arise

METHODS 3.1. Pretrain As a pretrein task, we use the image generation task, but due to the specific domain, several problems arise. The original medical images have too high resolution, for certainty , we de- note them H, W, D, so we divided them into patches, i.e. we taught diffusion models to generate patches of some specific size h, w, d.On the inferen...

work page

[7] [6]

Timestemps evaluation We investigated which timestamps are best suited for our task

RESULTS 4.1. Timestemps evaluation We investigated which timestamps are best suited for our task. We evaluated our pre-trained model for the segmentation problem of 13 classes for the BTCV dataset with nonlinear probing. We divided the classes into small, medium and large in size to analyze how well the model takes the semantics of data of various sizes. ...

work page

[8] [7]

CONCLUSION In conclusion, this study introduces an innovative pretrain- ing strategy utilizing diffusion models guided by anatomical insights for enhancing 3D medical image segmentation. By integrating an auxiliary diffusion process and a model pre- dicting universal 3D body-part coordinates, our approach ef- fectively generates generalizable feature repr...

work page