pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.15305 · v2 · pith:UTTGT7MRnew · submitted 2026-06-13 · 💻 cs.CV

CoMNet: A MedNeXt-CorrDiff Framework for Multi-Site Brain Tumor Segmentation

Michael L. Evans , MD Fayaz Bin Hossen , MD Shibly Sadique , Walia Farzana , Khan M. Iftekharuddin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 07:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords brain tumor segmentationmulti-site MRIgliomacorrective diffusionensemble learningMedNeXtDice score
0
0 comments X

The pith

An ensemble of MedNeXt fold predictions refined by a corrective diffusion block produces higher Dice scores on multi-site glioma MRI datasets.

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

The paper establishes that MedNeXt segmentations from multiple folds can be improved by a post-processing corrective diffusion step that refines residual errors before probabilistic ensembling. This matters for multi-site data because scanner and protocol differences normally increase variance in tumor masks, especially for small regions like enhancing tumor. The framework reduces that variance by learning corrections that aggregate into a site-robust consensus mask. If the approach holds, standard convolutional models become more reliable without site-specific retraining or hand-tuned parameters.

Core claim

CoMNet uses MedNeXt as the primary 3D segmentation network and adds a corrective diffusion block that learns to correct residual errors in individual fold prediction maps. These corrected maps are then aggregated via probabilistic thresholding into a final mask. The resulting ensemble achieves the highest Dice score compared with two baseline models on the UTSW-Glioma and BraTS-SSA datasets while remaining less sensitive to site-dependent imaging variability.

What carries the argument

The corrective diffusion block that refines residual errors across MedNeXt fold predictions before ensembling them into a consensus mask.

If this is right

  • Fold-level probability ensembling becomes a practical way to stabilize predictions across scanner differences.
  • Corrective diffusion post-processing can be added to existing state-of-the-art 3D networks without changing their training.
  • The method improves segmentation of small but clinically important regions such as enhancing tumor and tumor core.
  • Multi-site robustness is obtained without explicit domain adaptation or site labels during inference.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same corrective-diffusion-plus-ensemble pattern may transfer to other segmentation tasks that suffer from acquisition-site shifts.
  • Clinical deployment could become simpler if one model plus diffusion refinement replaces multiple site-tuned models.
  • Testing on longitudinal scans from the same patients would show whether the reduced variance also improves change detection over time.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion block can learn corrections that reduce site variance without adding new artifacts or needing site-specific adjustments.

What would settle it

On a held-out multi-site glioma dataset the CoMNet Dice score falls below the plain MedNeXt baseline or the corrected masks show measurable new false-positive regions compared with the uncorrected folds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.15305 by Khan M. Iftekharuddin, MD Fayaz Bin Hossen, MD Shibly Sadique, Michael L. Evans, Walia Farzana.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed CoMNet pipeline. Four MRI modalities are preprocessed and passed through the MedNeXt segmentation backbone. CorrDiff is then used as a corrective diffusion module for residual error refinement. Predictions from the unique fold-specific models are ensembled before final evaluation using BraTS-style tumor subregions: enhancing tumor (ET), tumor core (TC), and whole tumor (WT). glioma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of Segmentation Results on a Held-Out BraTS-SSA Test Patient. The error map represents every voxel where a prediction disagrees with the ground truth; a more accurate model produces a sparser error cloud. and combined tumor regions. Compared with MedNeXt, CoMNet reduces isolated prediction errors and provides a cleaner WT segmentation. The error map is also sparser for CoMNet, indicating fewe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of Held-Out Test Dice Scores Across Cross-Validation Folds. Per-fold held-out test Dice similarity coefficient (averaged over ET, TC, and WT) for (a) BraTS-SSA and (b) UTSW-Glioma. For each model, dots represent the five individual cross-validation folds and the dashed line their five-fold mean. For the baseline models, each dot is a single trained model. For CoMNet, each dot is the correspond… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Held-Out Test Performance by Tumor Region. DSC on the held-out test sets of (a) BraTS-SSA (n = 12) and (b) UTSW-Glioma (n = 125), for the ET, TC, WT, and their average (Avg). SegResNet and MedNeXt are reported as the mean ± standard deviation across the five cross-validation folds; CoMNet (proposed) is reported as the five-fold ensemble with CorrDiff refinement. The standard deviation for CoMNet is reporte… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CoMNet Performance Improvement by Dataset and Tumor Region. Absolute change in Dice similarity coefficient (∆ DSC) of CoMNet relative to SegResNet and MedNeXt on the held-out test sets, shown separately for (a) BraTS-SSA and (b) UTSW-Glioma. Each cell is CoMNet minus the baseline’s five-fold mean DSC for the enhancing tumor (ET), tumor core (TC), whole tumor (WT), and their average (Avg). Positive values r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of Training Loss on Held-Out Test Set Performance by Dataset. Held-out test Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) CoMNet trained with the Dice++ and cross-entropy loss (DSC++CE) versus DSC by tumor region for (a) BraTS-SSA and (b) UTSW-Glioma. DSC++CE loss generalizes best on the smaller BraTS-SSA cohort, whereas DSC loss is best on the larger UTSW-Glioma cohort. The better loss per cohort is used throu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate brain tumor segmentation from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is critical for treatment planning, response assessment, and neuro-oncology research. However, automated segmentation remains a difficult task in computer vision because of variation in tumor appearance and MRI protocols across patient scans. Moreover, clinically important regions such as enhancing tumor and tumor core are often small relative to the full brain volume, further increasing the difficulty of achieving high voxel-level precision. These challenges are amplified in multi-site datasets, where differences in scanner hardware and acquisition parameters can introduce non-biological variation. To address this, networks must learn tumor-specific features while remaining robust to site-dependent noise. In this paper, we show that an ensemble of multi-fold predictions from a modern 3D convolutional segmentation network with corrective diffusion (CorrDiff) post-processing improves brain tumor segmentation across datasets. We propose CoMNet, an ensembled MedNeXt-CorrDiff framework for accurate multi-site brain tumor segmentation. In this framework, we use MedNeXt as the primary segmentation model for feature learning, while a corrective diffusion block learns to refine the residual errors in the individual prediction maps before probabilistic thresholding. This process reduces the variance across fold predictions by correcting fold-specific residual errors and aggregating them into a consensus mask that is less sensitive to site-dependent imaging variability. Our proposed framework achieved the highest Dice score compared to two baseline models on the UTSW-Glioma and BraTS-SSA datasets. Experimental results support the use of corrective diffusion and fold-level probability ensembling as meaningful additions to existing state-of-the-art models for accurate glioma segmentation on multi-site datasets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CoMNet, an ensembled MedNeXt-CorrDiff framework that uses multi-fold predictions from a 3D convolutional segmentation network followed by a corrective diffusion post-processing block to refine residual errors and reduce site-dependent variance in multi-site brain tumor segmentation on MRI. It claims this yields the highest Dice scores versus two baseline models on the UTSW-Glioma and BraTS-SSA datasets.

Significance. If the performance gains are real, statistically validated, and attributable to the CorrDiff block rather than ensembling alone, the work could provide a useful, site-agnostic refinement strategy for handling scanner variability in clinical glioma segmentation. The absence of any quantitative results, ablations, or variance metrics in the manuscript prevents assessment of whether this significance is realized.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the framework 'achieved the highest Dice score compared to two baseline models' supplies no Dice values, standard deviations, p-values, ablation results (with vs. without CorrDiff), or site-stratified metrics. This leaves the weakest assumption—that the corrective diffusion block reduces site-dependent variance without new artifacts—untested by any reported evidence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the feedback highlighting the need for quantitative support in the abstract. We agree the current abstract is insufficiently detailed and will revise it (and related sections) to include specific metrics, ablations, and variance analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the framework 'achieved the highest Dice score compared to two baseline models' supplies no Dice values, standard deviations, p-values, ablation results (with vs. without CorrDiff), or site-stratified metrics. This leaves the weakest assumption—that the corrective diffusion block reduces site-dependent variance without new artifacts—untested by any reported evidence.

    Authors: We agree the abstract must be revised to report concrete Dice scores (with standard deviations), p-values where computed, ablation comparisons (with vs. without CorrDiff), and site-stratified results. The revised abstract will explicitly state the numerical improvements on UTSW-Glioma and BraTS-SSA. We will also add explicit reporting of prediction variance across folds/sites and a brief analysis confirming CorrDiff does not introduce new artifacts (e.g., via visual inspection and quantitative edge-error metrics). These changes will be made in the next version; the experimental section will be expanded if needed to ensure all supporting data are present. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical performance claim with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical segmentation framework (MedNeXt ensemble + CorrDiff post-processing) and asserts a highest Dice score on two datasets versus baselines. No equations, parameter-fitting steps, self-definitional relations, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the supplied text. The central claim is an experimental comparison result rather than any quantity derived from or equivalent to its own inputs by construction. This is the common case of a methods paper whose validity rests on external benchmarks, not internal reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; assessment limited to high-level description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5847 in / 1046 out tokens · 42913 ms · 2026-07-01T07:05:09.558745+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    & Balasamy, K

    Suganyadevi, S., Seethalakshmi, V . & Balasamy, K. A review on deep learning in medical image analysis.Int. J. Multimed. Inf. Retr.11, 19–38 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    K., Hadjiiski, L

    Chan, H.-P., Samala, R. K., Hadjiiski, L. M. & Zhou, C. Deep learning in medical image analysis.Deep. learning medical image analysis: challenges applications3–21 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Liu, Z.et al.Deep learning based brain tumor segmentation: a survey.Complex & intelligent systems9, 1001–1026 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    G.et al.Multi-class glioma segmentation on real-world data with missing mri sequences: comparison of three deep learning algorithms.Sci

    Pemberton, H. G.et al.Multi-class glioma segmentation on real-world data with missing mri sequences: comparison of three deep learning algorithms.Sci. reports13, 18911 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    & Frayne, R

    Bento, M., Fantini, I., Park, J., Rittner, L. & Frayne, R. Deep learning in large and multi-site structural brain mr imaging datasets.Front. neuroinformatics15, 805669 (2022). 13/15

    2022

  6. [6]

    In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 1–4 (IEEE, 2024)

    Jiang, Z.et al.Enhancing generalizability in brain tumor segmentation: Model ensemble with adaptive post-processing. In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 1–4 (IEEE, 2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Adewole, M.et al.The brats-africa dataset: expanding the brain tumor segmentation data to capture african populations. Radiol. Artif. Intell.7, e240528 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    journal computer assisted radiology surgery19, 2101–2109 (2024)

    De Sutter, S.et al.Modality redundancy for mri-based glioblastoma segmentation.Int. journal computer assisted radiology surgery19, 2101–2109 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11976–11986 (2022)

    Liu, Z.et al.A convnet for the 2020s. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11976–11986 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 405–415 (Springer, 2023)

    Roy, S.et al.Mednext: transformer-driven scaling of convnets for medical image segmentation. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 405–415 (Springer, 2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Roy, S.et al.Mednext-v2: Scaling 3d convnexts for large-scale supervised representation learning in medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17774(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    & Zheng, Y

    Li, W., Huang, W. & Zheng, Y . Corrdiff: Corrective diffusion model for accurate mri brain tumor segmentation.IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics28, 1587–1598 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    & Liu, M

    Guan, H. & Liu, M. Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey.IEEE Transactions on Biomed. Eng.69, 1173–1185 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    H., Kalra, S

    Kushol, R., Wilman, A. H., Kalra, S. & Yang, Y .-H. Dsmri: domain shift analyzer for multi-center mri datasets.Diagnostics 13, 2947 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    & Yap, P.-T

    Liu, S. & Yap, P.-T. Learning multi-site harmonization of magnetic resonance images without traveling human phantoms. Commun. engineering3, 6 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    OnLine23, 90 (2024)

    Abbasi, S.et al.Deep learning for the harmonization of structural mri scans: a survey.BioMedical Eng. OnLine23, 90 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Durrer, A.et al.Diffusion models for contrast harmonization of magnetic resonance images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08189(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    & Liu, M

    Wu, M., Yu, M., Lin, W., Yap, P.-T. & Liu, M. Unpaired multi-site brain mri harmonization with image style-guided latent diffusion. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 683–693 (Springer, 2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    NeuroImage316, 121297 (2025)

    Lan, H.et al.Diffusion based multi-domain neuroimaging harmonization method with preservation of anatomical details. NeuroImage316, 121297 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    & Brox, T

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. InInternational Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 234–241 (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    S., Brox, T

    Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S. S., Brox, T. & Ronneberger, O. 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 424–432 (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    & Ahmadi, S.-A

    Milletari, F., Navab, N. & Ahmadi, S.-A. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV), 565–571 (Ieee, 2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    3d mri brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization

    Myronenko, A. 3d mri brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization. InInternational MICCAI brainlesion workshop, 311–320 (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    F., Kohl, S

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P. F., Kohl, S. A., Petersen, J. & Maier-Hein, K. H. nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation.Nat. methods18, 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Chen, J.et al.Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306(2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    In International MICCAI brainlesion workshop, 272–284 (Springer, 2021)

    Hatamizadeh, A.et al.Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In International MICCAI brainlesion workshop, 272–284 (Springer, 2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 109–119 (Springer, 2021)

    Wang, W.et al.Transbts: Multimodal brain tumor segmentation using transformer. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 109–119 (Springer, 2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 16133–16142 (2023)

    Woo, S.et al.Convnext v2: Co-designing and scaling convnets with masked autoencoders. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 16133–16142 (2023). 14/15

    2023

  29. [29]

    & Abbeel, P

    Ho, J., Jain, A. & Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Adv. neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    image analysis88, 102846 (2023)

    Kazerouni, A.et al.Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey.Med. image analysis88, 102846 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    & Cattin, P

    Wolleb, J., Sandkühler, R., Bieder, F., Valmaggia, P. & Cattin, P. C. Diffusion models for implicit image segmentation ensembles. InInternational conference on medical imaging with deep learning, 1336–1348 (PMLR, 2022). 32.Wu, J.et al.Medsegdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model. InMedical imaging with deep learning, 1623–1639...

    2022

  32. [32]

    H.et al.The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats).IEEE transactions on medical imaging34, 1993–2024 (2014)

    Menze, B. H.et al.The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats).IEEE transactions on medical imaging34, 1993–2024 (2014)

    1993

  33. [33]

    D.et al.Advancing brain tumor analysis: Curating a high-quality mri dataset for deep learning-based molecular marker profiling

    Reddy, D. D.et al.Advancing brain tumor analysis: Curating a high-quality mri dataset for deep learning-based molecular marker profiling. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2373–2379 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    D.et al.The university of texas southwestern glioma dataset-mri, molecular markers and segmentations.Sci

    Reddy, D. D.et al.The university of texas southwestern glioma dataset-mri, molecular markers and segmentations.Sci. Data(2026). 15/15

    2026