Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Hierarchical Self-Prompting SAM: A Prompt-Free Medical Image Segmentation Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HSP-SAM replaces SAM's manual prompts with learned abstract Q&A prompts and reports up to 14.04% higher Dice on unseen medical datasets.

desk verdict A genuinely useful prompt-free SAM adapter, but the paper's central claim that abstract Q&A prompts drive its zero-shot gains is contradicted by its own ablation, which shows they contribute less than one Dice point. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02854 v1 pith:X5VPTLS2 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.CV

Mengmeng Zhang , Xingyuan Dai , Yicheng Sun , Jing Wang , Yueyang Yao , Xiaoyan Gong , Fuze Cong , Feiyue Wang
show 1 more author
Yisheng Lv
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords medicalimagesegmentationSegmentAnythingModelprompt-freeself-promptingabstractpromptsLoRAfine-tuningdomaingeneralizationpolyp
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 proposes HSP-SAM, a framework that adapts the Segment Anything Model (SAM) to medical image segmentation without any manual prompts. Its central claim is that SAM's prompt dependence can be removed not by generating the usual positional prompts (points, boxes) but by learning abstract 'Q&A' prompt pairs that encode the segmentation task itself. The authors report that this self-prompting approach outperforms prior prompt-free SAM methods on polyp and skin lesion segmentation, and achieves zero-shot Dice gains of up to 14.04% over the previous state of the art on unseen datasets across five imaging modalities. If the claim holds, a single SAM-based model can segment diverse medical images in a fully automated, prompt-free pipeline.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Q&A prompt pair: a set of learnable vectors $Q$ that are concatenated into the image encoder's input and transformed by a dimensionality-reducing map $f$ followed by task-specific MLPs into A-prompts $A$ for the mask decoder, with one pair per segmentation target count. A hierarchical feature fusion module assigns separate Q&A pairs, bottlenecks, and mask decoder blocks to each global attention layer of SAM's encoder, fusing high- and low-dimensional features through a U-shaped structure with skip connections. LoRA keeps the encoder parameter-efficient. The Q&A transform is what carries the paper's claim: the prompts are optimized to convey task-relevant cues, not to locate individual objects.

What would settle it

Find a source-trained HSP-SAM and a target dataset from the same modality but with a substantially different object distribution, then train a positional-prompt variant (for example, a self-generated box or point version) under identical conditions; if the positional variant matches or exceeds HSP-SAM's zero-shot Dice, the abstract-prompt claim is not supported. Equivalently, on a dataset where the object count per image varies widely, if Dice improves monotonically as the number of Q&A prompts grows beyond the maximum object count, the prompts are behaving as object-specific slots rather than task-level abstractions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper discovers that SAM does not truly require positional prompts: it requires task guidance, and positional prompts are only one possible form. HSP-SAM instantiates this by pairing learnable Q-prompts, fed into the frozen image encoder, with A-prompts, produced from the Q-prompts through a bottleneck mapping and task-specific MLPs, and fed into the mask decoder. These Q&A prompt pairs are trained during fine-tuning while the image encoder stays frozen except for LoRA adapters. The authors argue that because the prompts are abstract and task-level rather than tied to specific target locations, they generalize across datasets and modalities where positional prompting fails, such as vessel segmentation with thin structures or nuclei segmentation with dozens of objects per image.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the learned Q&A prompt pairs capture a task-level abstraction that transfers across datasets, rather than memorizing source-domain statistics that happen to correlate with the target datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prompt-free SAM adaptation becomes a viable default for medical imaging; clinicians could segment lesions without supplying points or boxes.
  • The same frozen SAM image encoder, equipped with learned abstract prompts, can be transferred zero-shot across five imaging modalities, suggesting a path to a universal medical segmentation model.
  • The Q&A prompt design implies that the number of prompts need not match the number of objects: performance stayed stable when prompt count varied from 1 to 16 on nuclei images with dozens of targets.
  • Because LoRA keeps the image encoder frozen and only trains small prompt and decoder modules, the framework adds only about 24 million parameters, making deployment cheap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the abstract-prompt interpretation is correct, the same mechanism could generalize beyond medical imaging to any SAM domain where prompts are unavailable, such as satellite or video segmentation, by retraining only the prompt pairs.
  • The paper compares against H-SAM and ESP-MedSAM, but not against a version of HSP-SAM that uses positional prompts; such an ablation would test whether the gains come from abstraction or simply from the hierarchical decoding and skip connections.
  • The reported prompt-count invariance on DSB-2018 is the key evidence; reproducing it across more datasets with variable object counts would strengthen the claim that the prompts are not object-specific.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HSP-SAM, a prompt-free adaptation of the Segment Anything Model for medical image segmentation. The method freezes the SAM image encoder and adds LoRA adapters, learned abstract 'Q&A' prompt pairs that are attached to both the encoder and decoder, and a hierarchical U-shaped decoder with skip connections. The authors report results on polyp segmentation, skin lesion segmentation, and a five-modality domain-generalization protocol with zero-shot evaluation on unseen target datasets. They claim state-of-the-art or highly competitive Dice and Hausdorff distance scores, including gains of up to 14.04% Dice over prior prompt-free SAM methods on a challenging unseen dataset, and they argue that abstract task-guided prompts generalize better than positional prompts. The paper is written as a systems/application contribution with a strong conceptual framing, but the central attribution of the gains to abstract prompts is not directly tested in the reported experiments.

Significance. If the claims hold, HSP-SAM would be a useful prompt-free medical segmentation baseline with practical domain-generalization value, and its zero-shot evaluations across several medical modalities are a genuine strength. The proposed recipe is simple and likely to be adopted by practitioners. However, the paper's more ambitious conceptual claim—that learned abstract prompts, rather than positional prompts, drive the large zero-shot gains—is currently under-supported. The key comparison is confounded by simultaneous changes in backbone, LoRA configuration, decoder depth, and skip connections, and the paper's own ablation attributes less than one Dice point to the Q&A module. This is a load-bearing issue for the stated novelty. The manuscript also defers experimental details to appendices that are not present and does not report uncertainty estimates. With a same-architecture positional-prompt control and proper statistical reporting, the contribution would be substantially stronger.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Table 5; §4.3, Table 4] The central claim that abstract Q&A prompts outperform positional prompts and account for the reported zero-shot gains is not supported by the manuscript's own ablation. In Table 5, removing only the Q&A pairs from the full model (Ablation_3 vs. Ablation_5) changes average Dice from 78.78 to 77.81, a drop of less than one point, while removing both Q&A pairs and skip connections (Ablation_4) leaves 77.87. At the same time, the comparisons to SAM-SP, H-SAM, and ESP-MedSAM in Table 4 change multiple architectural components simultaneously: backbone, LoRA rank, decoder depth, and skip connections. The 14.04-point gap on T3 therefore cannot be uniquely attributed to replacing positional prompts with abstract prompts. Please add a control that keeps the full HSP-SAM architecture but substitutes learned positional prompts for the Q&A pairs, and report per-dataset Dice and HD for that control.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (1)-(2); §4.5, Fig. 3] The prompt-count invariance analysis in Fig. 3 is indirect and does not clarify the aggregation mechanism. The paper defines c Q&A pairs and states that each pair corresponds to a segmentation target, but it never states how the c output tokens from the mask decoder are combined into the final single prediction. Without knowing whether the outputs are averaged, concatenated, or decoded through separate heads, the observed invariance to c could be an artifact of the aggregation operation rather than evidence that the prompts encode task-level abstractions. Please specify the aggregation and, if possible, report the actual final-segmentation behavior for each prompt count.
  3. [Tables 1-4] All performance comparisons are reported as single point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several headline improvements are small; for example, the Dice gains on ISIC-2017 and ISIC-2018 in Table 2 are 0.44 and 0.93 points, which are within typical run-to-run variation for medical segmentation models. The conclusion that HSP-SAM outperforms previous methods, especially on the classic tasks in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, is therefore not statistically supported. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three independent runs, or bootstrap confidence intervals, for the key comparisons.
  4. [§4.1-§4.3, Appendices A.1-A.3] The experimental setup is not fully checkable from the submitted manuscript. The text repeatedly defers dataset split definitions, training hyperparameters, and implementation details to Appendix A.1-A.3, but these appendices are not present in the manuscript, and the code is stated to be released only upon acceptance. This is particularly important for the zero-shot generalization protocol in Section 4.3, because the exact construction of the source-target pairs and the 7:3 splits determines whether the evaluation is truly out-of-sample. Please include the appendix content in the version under review or provide a public anonymized code/data supplement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The dataset name 'CVC-ClonDB' appears to be a typo; elsewhere in the manuscript and in the literature it is 'CVC-ColonDB'.
  2. [§2.3 and References] The SAM-SP method is cited as [58] in Section 2.3 but as [59] in the reference list and in Tables 1 and 2; please make the citation numbering consistent.
  3. [§4.4] The text refers to 'Ablatio_4' in the setup paragraph; this should be 'Ablation_4'. Also, the ablation table is labeled Table 5 in the manuscript but is referred to as 'Table 6' in the text; please reconcile the numbering.
  4. [§4.5, Fig. 3] The caption for Fig. 3 states that source results are marked with triangles and target results with squares, but the figure as rendered has no legend and no axis labels; please add a legend and label the axes for the figure to be interpretable.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'we are the first to introduce learning abstract prompts during the self-prompting process' is a strong novelty claim that cannot be verified from the cited related work alone; please soften it or provide a more systematic comparison with any existing abstract-prompt self-prompting methods.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the reported zero-shot gains are genuine out-of-sample evaluations, and the Q&A-prompt claim, while weakly controlled, is not assumed into the method by construction.

full rationale

HSP-SAM is an empirical architecture paper. The strong generalization numbers (e.g., 80.00 vs. 65.96 Dice on T3 in Table 4) come from training on source datasets and evaluating on unseen target datasets, which is a genuine out-of-sample test rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The Q&A prompts are learnable parameters defined in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2); they are not derived from the evaluation labels, and no equation makes a predicted quantity equal to a fitted input. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the prior-work citations (SAM-SP, H-SAM, ESP-MedSAM) are external baselines, and no 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors is invoked to force the architecture. The main scientific weakness is attribution: the ablation in Table 5 shows removing Q&A pairs changes average Dice by only ~0.97 (78.78 to 77.81), and there is no positional-prompt control, so the conclusion that abstract prompts drive the gains is under-supported. That is a confound/ablation gap, not circularity. The prompt-count invariance argument in Sec. 4.5 is an indirect operationalization and could be criticized, but it does not reduce a claim to its own definition. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of hyperparameters and on the assumption that learned prompt tokens encode transferable task abstractions. The Q&A tokens are the only newly invented entity, and they lack independent evidence outside the paper's own experiments.

free parameters (3)
  • loss weight alpha = 0.8
    Weight in Eq. (3) balancing Dice loss and cross-entropy loss; chosen by hand, not justified by a search.
  • LoRA rank r = 32
    Rank of low-rank adaptation for every image encoder block, set by default in Section 3.2.
  • number of Q&A prompt pairs c = equal to number of segmentation targets
    Section 3.3 sets c to the target count, but Section 4.5 shows performance is invariant to c=1..16, so c is a free design choice not grounded in the method.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAM's image encoder has sufficient feature extraction and generalization for medical images; the only obstacle is prompt dependence.
    Section 1 states this explicitly; if false, LoRA on a frozen encoder cannot close the domain gap.
  • ad hoc to paper Abstract task-guided prompts can substitute for positional prompts in SAM.
    This is the core design hypothesis in Sections 1 and 3.3; the supporting evidence is empirical and uncontrolled.
  • domain assumption U-shaped hierarchical fusion with skip connections improves medical segmentation.
    Adopted from the U-Net literature in Section 2.2 and used as a module in HSP-SAM.
  • domain assumption Zero-shot performance on target datasets measures task-level understanding.
    Section 4.3 interprets cross-dataset generalization as evidence for abstract prompts; distribution shifts also include resolution, scanner, and label statistics.
invented entities (1)
  • Q&A prompt pairs (Q-prompts and A-prompts)
    purpose: Learned tokens inserted into the image encoder and mask decoder to provide task guidance without manual prompts.
    The tokens are trained parameters; their 'abstract task-level semantics' is inferred from attention maps in Fig. 4 and prompt-count invariance, not from any independent external measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Self-Prompting SAM: A Prompt-Free Medical Image Segmentation Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5VPTLS2

@misc{pith2026250602854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Self-Prompting SAM: A Prompt-Free Medical Image Segmentation Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5VPTLS2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02854}
}
read the original abstract

Although the Segment Anything Model (SAM) is highly effective in natural image segmentation, it requires dependencies on prompts, which limits its applicability to medical imaging where manual prompts are often unavailable. Existing efforts to fine-tune SAM for medical segmentation typically struggle to remove this dependency. We propose Hierarchical Self-Prompting SAM (HSP-SAM), a novel self-prompting framework that enables SAM to achieve strong performance in prompt-free medical image segmentation. Unlike previous self-prompting methods that remain limited to positional prompts similar to vanilla SAM, we are the first to introduce learning abstract prompts during the self-prompting process. This simple and intuitive self-prompting framework achieves superior performance on classic segmentation tasks such as polyp and skin lesion segmentation, while maintaining robustness across diverse medical imaging modalities. Furthermore, it exhibits strong generalization to unseen datasets, achieving improvements of up to 14.04% over previous state-of-the-art methods on some challenging benchmarks. These results suggest that abstract prompts encapsulate richer and higher-dimensional semantic information compared to positional prompts, thereby enhancing the model's robustness and generalization performance. All models and codes will be released upon acceptance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Previous Methods vs. HSP-SAM. (a)illustrates interactive segmentation methods that rely on manual prompt inputs. (b)shows prior self-prompting approaches still constrained by positional prompts, lacking generalization. (c)presents our proposed self-prompting method that generates abstract task-guided prompts, achieving strong generalizability across modalities. segmentation models, with their powerful generalization… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of HSP-SAM. Notably, during training, all parameters of the image encoder are frozen, while the remaining components are trainable. (d) illustrates the transformation from Q prompt to A prompt, where all q prompts are first processed through a shared mapping function f, and then further transformed into a prompts by task-specific MLP modules. self-distillation strategy, generating bounding box prompts from … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt Quantity vs. Segmentation Accuracy Across Datasets. Results on the source datasets are marked with triangles, and results on the target datasets are marked with squares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of attention heatmaps of Q&A prompt pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wm-dova maps for accurate polyp highlighting in colonoscopy: Validation vs

    Jorge Bernal, F Javier Sánchez, Gloria Fernández-Esparrach, Debora Gil, Cristina Rodríguez, and Fernando Vilariño. Wm-dova maps for accurate polyp highlighting in colonoscopy: Validation vs. saliency maps from physicians.Computerized medical imaging and graphics, 43:99–111, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Isic 2017-skin lesion analysis towards melanoma detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00523, 2017

    Matt Berseth. Isic 2017-skin lesion analysis towards melanoma detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00523, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Ma-sam: Modality-agnostic sam adaptation for 3d medical image segmentation.Medical Image Analysis, 98:103310, 2024

    Cheng Chen, Juzheng Miao, Dufan Wu, Aoxiao Zhong, Zhiling Yan, Sekeun Kim, Jiang Hu, Zhengliang Liu, Lichao Sun, Xiang Li, et al. Ma-sam: Modality-agnostic sam adaptation for 3d medical image segmentation.Medical Image Analysis, 98:103310, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    Jieneng Chen, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Xiangde Luo, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Le Lu, Alan L Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):850–862, 2024

    Richard J Chen, Tong Ding, Ming Y Lu, Drew FK Williamson, Guillaume Jaume, Andrew H Song, Bowen Chen, Andrew Zhang, Daniel Shao, Muhammad Shaban, et al. Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):850–862, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Adapt- former: Adapting vision transformers for scalable visual recognition.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16664–16678, 2022

    Shoufa Chen, Chongjian Ge, Zhan Tong, Jiangliu Wang, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Ping Luo. Adapt- former: Adapting vision transformers for scalable visual recognition.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16664–16678, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Sam-med2d.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16184, 2023

    Junlong Cheng, Jin Ye, Zhongying Deng, Jianpin Chen, Tianbin Li, Haoyu Wang, Yanzhou Su, Ziyan Huang, Jilong Chen, Lei Jiang, et al. Sam-med2d.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16184, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Unleashing the potential of sam for medical adaptation via hierarchical decoding

    Zhiheng Cheng, Qingyue Wei, Hongru Zhu, Yan Wang, Liangqiong Qu, Wei Shao, and Yuyin Zhou. Unleashing the potential of sam for medical adaptation via hierarchical decoding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3511–3522, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic).arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03368, 2019

    Noel Codella, Veronica Rotemberg, Philipp Tschandl, M Emre Celebi, Stephen Dusza, David Gutman, Brian Helba, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Michael Marchetti, et al. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin imaging ...

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Openprompt: An open-source framework for prompt-learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01998, 2021

    Ning Ding, Shengding Hu, Weilin Zhao, Yulin Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Maosong Sun. Openprompt: An open-source framework for prompt-learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01998, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Polyp-pvt: Polyp segmentation with pyramid vision transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.06932, 2021

    Bo Dong, Wenhai Wang, Deng-Ping Fan, Jinpeng Li, Huazhu Fu, and Ling Shao. Polyp-pvt: Polyp segmentation with pyramid vision transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.06932, 2021. 10

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Pranet: Parallel reverse attention network for polyp segmentation

    Deng-Ping Fan, Ge-Peng Ji, Tao Zhou, Geng Chen, Huazhu Fu, Jianbing Shen, and Ling Shao. Pranet: Parallel reverse attention network for polyp segmentation. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 263–273. Springer, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners

    Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15723, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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. InInternational MICCAI brainlesion workshop, pages 272–284. Springer, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    H2former: An efficient hierarchical hybrid transformer for medical image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(9):2763–2775, 2023

    Along He, Kai Wang, Tao Li, Chengkun Du, Shuang Xia, and Huazhu Fu. H2former: An efficient hierarchical hybrid transformer for medical image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(9):2763–2775, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Att-unet: pixel-wise staircase attention for weed and crop detection

    Xin-Zhi Hu, Wang-Su Jeon, and Sang-Yong Rhee. Att-unet: pixel-wise staircase attention for weed and crop detection. In2023 International Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications (iFUZZY), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Segment anything model for medical images?Medical Image Analysis, 92:103061, 2024

    Yuhao Huang, Xin Yang, Lian Liu, Han Zhou, Ao Chang, Xinrui Zhou, Rusi Chen, Junxuan Yu, Jiongquan Chen, Chaoyu Chen, et al. Segment anything model for medical images?Medical Image Analysis, 92:103061, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Jaeger, Simon A

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F. Jaeger, Simon A. A. Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H. Maier-Hein. nnu-net: A self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation.Nature Methods, 18(2):203–211, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset

    Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, Pål Halvorsen, Thomas De Lange, Dag Johansen, and Håvard D Johansen. Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset. InInternational conference on multimedia modeling, pages 451–462. Springer, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Zept: Zero-shot pan-tumor segmentation via query-disentangling and self-prompting

    Yankai Jiang, Zhongzhen Huang, Rongzhao Zhang, Xiaofan Zhang, and Shaoting Zhang. Zept: Zero-shot pan-tumor segmentation via query-disentangling and self-prompting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11386–11397, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    How can we know what language models know?Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438, 2020

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. How can we know what language models know?Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning

    Muhammad Uzair Khattak, Hanoona Rasheed, Muhammad Maaz, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 19113–19122, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Uacanet: Uncertainty augmented context attention for polyp segmentation

    Taehun Kim, Hyemin Lee, and Daijin Kim. Uacanet: Uncertainty augmented context attention for polyp segmentation. InProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on multimedia, pages 2167–2175, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Prompt learning in computer vision: a survey.Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 25(1):42–63, 2024

    Yiming Lei, Jingqi Li, Zilong Li, Yuan Cao, and Hongming Shan. Prompt learning in computer vision: a survey.Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 25(1):42–63, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Segment anything in medical images

    Jun Ma, Yuting He, Feifei Li, Lin Han, Chenyu You, and Bo Wang. Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications, 15(1):654, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation

    Fausto Milletari, Nassir Navab, and Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 565–571, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Modality-agnostic domain generalizable medical image segmentation by multi-frequency in multi-scale attention

    Ju-Hyeon Nam, Nur Suriza Syazwany, Su Jung Kim, and Sang-Chul Lee. Modality-agnostic domain generalizable medical image segmentation by multi-frequency in multi-scale attention. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11480–11...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Hammerla, Bernhard Kainz, Ben Glocker, and Daniel Rueckert

    Ozan Oktay, Jo Schlemper, Loic Le Folgoc, Matthew Lee, Mattias Heinrich, Kazunari Misawa, Kensaku Mori, Steven McDonagh, Nils Y . Hammerla, Bernhard Kainz, Ben Glocker, and Daniel Rueckert. Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas, 2018. 11

    2018

  23. [31]

    Causality- inspired single-source domain generalization for medical image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(4):1095–1106, 2022

    Cheng Ouyang, Chen Chen, Surui Li, Zeju Li, Chen Qin, Wenjia Bai, and Daniel Rueckert. Causality- inspired single-source domain generalization for medical image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(4):1095–1106, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. InMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part I...

    2015

  25. [33]

    Vm-unet: Vision mamba unet for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02491, 2024

    Jiacheng Ruan, Jincheng Li, and Suncheng Xiang. Vm-unet: Vision mamba unet for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02491, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Malunet: A multi-attention and light-weight unet for skin lesion segmentation

    Jiacheng Ruan, Suncheng Xiang, Mingye Xie, Ting Liu, and Yuzhuo Fu. Malunet: A multi-attention and light-weight unet for skin lesion segmentation. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 1150–1156. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Ege-unet: an efficient group enhanced unet for skin lesion segmentation

    Jiacheng Ruan, Mingye Xie, Jingsheng Gao, Ting Liu, and Yuzhuo Fu. Ege-unet: an efficient group enhanced unet for skin lesion segmentation. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 481–490. Springer, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Attention gated networks: Learning to leverage salient regions in medical images.Medical image analysis, 53:197–207, 2019

    Jo Schlemper, Ozan Oktay, Michiel Schaap, Mattias Heinrich, Bernhard Kainz, Ben Glocker, and Daniel Rueckert. Attention gated networks: Learning to leverage salient regions in medical images.Medical image analysis, 53:197–207, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Toward embedded detection of polyps in wce images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 9:283–293, 2014

    Juan Silva, Aymeric Histace, Olivier Romain, Xavier Dray, and Bertrand Granado. Toward embedded detection of polyps in wce images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 9:283–293, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Sam-lightening: A lightweight segment anything model with dilated flash attention to achieve 30 times acceleration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09195, 2024

    Yanfei Song, Bangzheng Pu, Peng Wang, Hongxu Jiang, Dong Dong, Yongxiang Cao, and Yiqing Shen. Sam-lightening: A lightweight segment anything model with dilated flash attention to achieve 30 times acceleration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09195, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Automated polyp detection in colonoscopy videos using shape and context information.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 35(2):630–644, 2015

    Nima Tajbakhsh, Suryakanth R Gurudu, and Jianming Liang. Automated polyp detection in colonoscopy videos using shape and context information.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 35(2):630–644, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    A benchmark for endoluminal scene segmentation of colonoscopy images.Journal of healthcare engineering, 2017(1):4037190, 2017

    David Vázquez, Jorge Bernal, F Javier Sánchez, Gloria Fernández-Esparrach, Antonio M López, Adriana Romero, Michal Drozdzal, and Aaron Courville. A benchmark for endoluminal scene segmentation of colonoscopy images.Journal of healthcare engineering, 2017(1):4037190, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Repvit-sam: Towards real-time segmenting anything.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05760, 2023

    Ao Wang, Hui Chen, Zijia Lin, Jungong Han, and Guiguang Ding. Repvit-sam: Towards real-time segmenting anything.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05760, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Vilt-clip: Video and language tuning clip with multimodal prompt learning and scenario-guided optimization

    Hao Wang, Fang Liu, Licheng Jiao, Jiahao Wang, Zehua Hao, Shuo Li, Lingling Li, Puhua Chen, and Xu Liu. Vilt-clip: Video and language tuning clip with multimodal prompt learning and scenario-guided optimization. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Mcpl: Multi-modal collaborative prompt learning for medical vision-language model.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2024

    Pengyu Wang, Huaqi Zhang, and Yixuan Yuan. Mcpl: Multi-modal collaborative prompt learning for medical vision-language model.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Medical image segmentation using deep learning: A survey.IET image processing, 16(5):1243–1267, 2022

    Risheng Wang, Tao Lei, Ruixia Cui, Bingtao Zhang, Hongying Meng, and Asoke K Nandi. Medical image segmentation using deep learning: A survey.IET image processing, 16(5):1243–1267, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Learning to prompt for continual learning

    Zifeng Wang, Zizhao Zhang, Chen-Yu Lee, Han Zhang, Ruoxi Sun, Xiaoqi Ren, Guolong Su, Vincent Perot, Jennifer Dy, and Tomas Pfister. Learning to prompt for continual learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 139...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation.Medical image analysis, 102:103547, 2025

    Junde Wu, Ziyue Wang, Mingxuan Hong, Wei Ji, Huazhu Fu, Yanwu Xu, Min Xu, and Yueming Jin. Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation.Medical image analysis, 102:103547, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Self-prompt sam: Medical image segmentation via automatic prompt sam adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00630, 2025

    Bin Xie, Hao Tang, Dawen Cai, Yan Yan, and Gady Agam. Self-prompt sam: Medical image segmentation via automatic prompt sam adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00630, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Masksam: Towards auto-prompt sam with mask classification for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14103, 2024

    Bin Xie, Hao Tang, Bin Duan, Dawen Cai, and Yan Yan. Masksam: Towards auto-prompt sam with mask classification for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14103, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Efficientsam: Leveraged masked image pretraining for efficient segment anything

    Yunyang Xiong, Bala Varadarajan, Lemeng Wu, Xiaoyu Xiang, Fanyi Xiao, Chenchen Zhu, Xiaoliang Dai, Dilin Wang, Fei Sun, Forrest Iandola, et al. Efficientsam: Leveraged masked image pretraining for efficient segment anything. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Esp-medsam: Efficient self-prompting sam for universal domain-generalized medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14153, 2024

    Qing Xu, Jiaxuan Li, Xiangjian He, Ziyu Liu, Zhen Chen, Wenting Duan, Chenxin Li, Maggie M He, Fiseha B Tesema, Wooi P Cheah, et al. Esp-medsam: Efficient self-prompting sam for universal domain-generalized medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14153, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Prompt learns prompt: Exploring knowledge-aware generative prompt collaboration for video captioning

    Liqi Yan, Cheng Han, Zenglin Xu, Dongfang Liu, and Qifan Wang. Prompt learns prompt: Exploring knowledge-aware generative prompt collaboration for video captioning. InIJCAI, pages 1622–1630, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Text prompt with normality guidance for weakly supervised video anomaly detection

    Zhiwei Yang, Jing Liu, and Peng Wu. Text prompt with normality guidance for weakly supervised video anomaly detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18899–18908, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14289, 2023

    Chaoning Zhang, Dongshen Han, Yu Qiao, Jung Uk Kim, Sung-Ho Bae, Seungkyu Lee, and Choong Seon Hong. Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14289, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation

    Kaidong Zhang and Dong Liu. Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13785, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Transfuse: Fusing transformers and cnns for medical image segmentation

    Yundong Zhang, Huiye Liu, and Qiang Hu. Transfuse: Fusing transformers and cnns for medical image segmentation. InMedical image computing and computer assisted intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th international conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, proceeding...

    2021

  48. [56]

    Efficientvit-sam: Accelerated segment anything model without performance loss

    Zhuoyang Zhang, Han Cai, and Song Han. Efficientvit-sam: Accelerated segment anything model without performance loss. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7859–7863, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Edgesam: Prompt-in-the-loop distillation for on-device deployment of sam.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06660, 2023

    Chong Zhou, Xiangtai Li, Chen Change Loy, and Bo Dai. Edgesam: Prompt-in-the-loop distillation for on-device deployment of sam.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06660, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sam-sp: Self-prompting makes sam great again, 2024

    Chunpeng Zhou, Kangjie Ning, Qianqian Shen, Sheng Zhou, Zhi Yu, and Haishuai Wang. Sam-sp: Self-prompting makes sam great again, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Sam-sp: Self-prompting makes sam great again.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12364, 2024

    Chunpeng Zhou, Kangjie Ning, Qianqian Shen, Sheng Zhou, Zhi Yu, and Haishuai Wang. Sam-sp: Self-prompting makes sam great again.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12364, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Conditional prompt learning for vision- language models

    Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Conditional prompt learning for vision- language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16816–16825, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models

    Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16816–16825, June 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

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

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation. In Danail Stoyanov, Zeike Taylor, Gustavo Carneiro, Tanveer Syeda-Mahmood, Anne Martel, Lena Maier-Hein, João Manuel R.S. Tavares...

    2018

  55. [63]

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

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation. InDeep learning in medical image analysis and multimodal learning for clinical decision support: 4th international workshop, DLMI...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.