Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

An Ensemble Approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation and Synthesis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes an ensemble of four MRI segmentation architectures, trained with MRI-artifact data augmentation and finished with volume-based relabeling, as the route to accurate brain tumor segmentation across data domains, and…

desk verdict Useful BraTS 2024 benchmark numbers, but the headline ensemble claim is not backed by the reported tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17617 v1 pith:KEK42DXB submitted 2024-11-26 eess.IV cs.CV

Juampablo E. Heras Rivera , Agamdeep S. Chopra , Tianyi Ren , Hitender Oswal , Yutong Pan , Zineb Sordo , Sophie Walters , William Henry
show 9 more authors
Hooman Mohammadi Riley Olson Fargol Rezayaraghi Tyson Lam Akshay Jaikanth Pavan Kancharla Jacob Ruzevick Daniela Ushizima Mehmet Kurt
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords deeplearningMRIbraintumorsegmentationensembledataaugmentationdomainadaptationimageinpaintingBraTSchallenge
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

Gliomas are hard to segment reliably by eye, and MRI scans vary across scanners, field strengths, and patient populations, so an automated tool that holds up across settings would directly help treatment planning. This paper proposes such a tool: an ensemble of four U-Net-style segmentation models—an optimized U-Net, nnU-Net, Swin-UNETR, and U-Mamba—trained with MRI-artifact data augmentation and finished with volume-based relabeling. It reports that on the BraTS 2024 generalizability test set nnU-Net leads in overlap (Dice) while U-Mamba leads in boundary error (HD95), and that on the BraTS-Africa task, domain-adversarial training plus ensembling lifts whole-tumor Dice to about 94%. For the synthesis side, the paper contributes MA3T-Former, a 3D masked transformer for MRI inpainting, and claims it reaches high validation quality after 20 epochs when trained with the GrokFast schedule.

What carries the argument

Four backbones carry the segmentation claim: the optimized U-Net (a five-level encoder-decoder used as baseline), nnU-Net (a self-configuring segmentation method), Swin-UNETR (a Swin-transformer encoder feeding a CNN decoder), and U-Mamba (a state-space-model encoder-decoder). The transferable mechanisms around them are probabilistic MRI-artifact augmentation—motion, spike, bias field, elastic deformation, and anisotropy, each applied with probability 0.1—and a postprocessing rule that removes small connected components, relabels enhancing tissue to necrotic core when the ET/WT ratio is below 0.03, and relabels non-enhancing FLAIR hyperintensity when the SNFH/WT ratio equals 1. For the Africa task the key object is a domain-adversarial network (DANN) on the optimized U-Net backbone, with a domain classifier at the bottleneck that is trained to be fooled so that features become domain-invariant. For synthesis the central object is MA3T-Former, a 3D masked transformer that replaces standard attention with gated linear attention, optionally adds a gated Fourier block, and is trained with a Wasserstein GAN objective and the GrokFast gradient-amplification algorithm.

What would settle it

On the BraTS 2024 generalizability test set, compute the full ensemble's lesion-wise whole-tumor Dice and HD95; if the ensemble does not beat the best individual model in Table 1 (nnU-Net at 88.11% Dice or U-Mamba at 14.51 mm HD95), the paper's ensemble claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that no single modern architecture wins on every segmentation metric, and a pipeline that exploits their complementarity—four trained backbones combined with artifact-aware augmentation and adaptive postprocessing—is the route to accurate brain tumor segmentation across data domains. The reported per-model numbers on the generalizability test set support the premise of complementarity: nnU-Net posts the best Dice scores (whole-tumor 88.11), U-Mamba the best HD95 values (whole-tumor 14.51 mm), with the optimized U-Net and Swin-UNETR filling out the ensemble. For the Africa challenge, the paper asserts that a domain-adversarial network trained on adult glioma plus African 1.5T data, and an ensemble of its variants, reaches whole-tumor Dice of 94.4–94.5% while reducing HD95 to about 4 mm. For inpainting, the paper claims that MA3T-Former—a 3D transformer with gated linear attention, an optional Fourier block, and mask-embedding noise—converges faster than a 1500-epoch Attention U-Net and can scale to 2.35 billion parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the validation-time choices—especially the 10% augmentation probability and the ET/WT and SNFH/WT relabeling thresholds—transfer to hidden test data; the paper does not isolate the ensemble or the postprocessing separately, so if those choices overfit the validation set, the reported gains could evaporate on unseen scans.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ensemble claim holds, future brain tumor segmentation pipelines should expect complementarity among backbones: nnU-Net for overlap accuracy, U-Mamba for boundary accuracy, rather than a single winner on all metrics.
  • The 10% augmentation-probability result gives a concrete default for MRI artifact augmentation: mild application improves boundary metrics, while 20–30% probabilities can degrade Dice on some folds.
  • The relabeling rules (ET/WT below 0.03, SNFH/WT equal to 1) are a plug-in postprocessing recipe that can be applied on top of any model to suppress false positives from small enhancing regions and whole-FLAIR non-enhancing regions.
  • For small, low-field-strength datasets like BraTS-Africa, the DANN-based transfer recipe—train on a large source dataset plus the small target dataset, then ensemble DANN variants—can reach whole-tumor Dice above 94%.
  • If the MA3T-Former convergence claim is correct, the combination of gated linear attention, Fourier blocks, and GrokFast offers a path to training very large inpainting models with less compute than conventional transformer inpainting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The augmentation and postprocessing recipe is model-agnostic, so a reader can transplant it onto any future segmentation backbone; the paper itself does not claim this transfer.
  • The Africa experiment suggests a testable rule for other low-resource imaging settings: pair a small local dataset with a large public source dataset, use domain-adversarial training, and ensemble the DANN variants.
  • The 20-epoch MA3T-Former result raises the question of which component—gated linear attention, the Fourier block, or GrokFast—drives the speedup; an ablation would isolate it.
  • The relabeling rules embody a prior about tumor composition, so applying them to metastases or pediatric tumors is a natural next test of their limits.
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 describes the authors' submission to the 2024 Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenge, covering the Adult Glioma Post-Treatment, BraTS-Africa, Generalizability (GoAT), and Inpainting sub-challenges. The proposed framework combines four segmentation architectures (optimized U-Net, nnU-Net, Swin-UNETR, U-Mamba) with data augmentation, ensembling, and post-processing, and separately introduces MA3T-Former, a novel transformer-based inpainting model trained with a WGAN-style objective and GrokFast acceleration. The paper reports test metrics for the GoAT and Africa sub-challenges and validation metrics for the inpainting task. The central claim in the abstract and introduction is that the ensemble of these architectures achieves accurate segmentation and fine image synthesis.

Significance. If the ensemble claim were substantiated, the paper would provide a useful benchmark of modern segmentation architectures on the new BraTS 2024 sub-challenges. The empirical comparison of nnU-Net, U-Mamba, Swin-UNETR, and optimized U-Net on the GoAT test set is informative even though it reports only individual models. The Africa sub-challenge results, including the DANN transfer-learning approach, add data points on domain adaptation for low-resource settings. However, the paper's distinguishing contribution—the ensemble—is never demonstrated to improve over its components, and the inpainting results clearly fall below the baselines the authors themselves provide. The paper therefore has value as a challenge report but does not currently establish the stated central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The GoAT results report each architecture individually, with no ensemble prediction. Since the abstract and Section 1 state that the framework ensembles the four architectures, the absence of any ensemble result for GoAT means the central claim cannot be evaluated. Please report the ensemble result for the GoAT sub-challenge, or revise the paper's claims to describe the work as an evaluation of four architectures rather than an ensemble framework.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The DAEnsemble result is worse than the single DANN model on ET Dice (75.78 vs 81.68), TC Dice (73.86 vs 77.30), and lesion-wise HD95 for TC (36.54 vs 31.90). This directly contradicts the statement in Section 4 that 'ensemble techniques can greatly boost the robustness of the models.' No quantitative evidence for ensemble benefit is provided anywhere in the paper; please either provide such evidence or temper the discussion to reflect the measured outcome.
  3. [Section 3.3, Table 4] The MA3T-F result after 20 epochs has PSNR 16.24 and MSE 0.0015, substantially worse than the Attention-UNet baselines (PSNR ~20.2–20.5, MSE 0.0002). The text itself concedes these results are 'not state of the art.' This does not support the abstract's claim of 'finely synthesized images.' The synthesis claim should be either removed or supported by results from a trained model that reaches competitive performance.
  4. [Section 2.3, Postprocessing; Section 3.2/3.1] The data augmentation probability (10%, selected in Table 2) and the post-processing thresholds (ET/WT < 0.03, SNFH/WT == 1) are chosen on validation, and no ablation isolates the contribution of the ensemble or the post-processing to the final test scores. Because the paper's central claim is about the ensemble, the lack of an ablation makes it impossible to attribute any reported gain to the ensemble itself. Please include an ablation (e.g., with/without ensemble, with/without post-processing) or explicitly state that the contributions of these components are not separated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Learning rate schedule] The learning rate formula uses 'epochi' and 'epochN' without defining the index range; please write it as α_i = α_0 × (1 − i/N)^0.75 for i = 1, …, N to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section 2.3, References] Reference [23] is cited for the Attention-UNet inpainting baseline, but the reference list entry for [23] is the U-Mamba paper (Jun Ma et al.). The Attention-UNet baseline should instead cite Oktay et al. (2018) or another appropriate source.
  3. [Table 1] There is a typo in the header: 'Leasion-Wise' should be 'Lesion-Wise'.
  4. [Table 4 and Section 3.3] The table refers to 'MA3T-Fv1' while the text refers to 'MA3T-F with GrokFast'; please make the model naming consistent.
  5. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'state of art model' should be 'state-of-the-art model' in the nnU-Net paragraph.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical challenge report whose central claims are benchmarked on held-out data, with only provenance-style self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical BraTS 2024 challenge report rather than a derivation, so no step equates an output with an input by construction. Segmentation claims are evaluated on held-out challenge data (Sections 3.1-3.2) using externally published architectures (nnU-Net, U-Mamba, Swin-UNETR, and the optimized U-Net); these results do not reduce to assumptions in the paper. Self-citations (refs 11, 20, 22, 24) appear as provenance for the optimized-U-Net adaptation, a loss combination, and the DANN-without-gradient-reversal variant; they are descriptive rather than load-bearing, and no self-cited uniqueness or forbidden-alternative claim is invoked. The selection of a 10% augmentation probability (Table 2) and post-processing ratios is performed on validation folds and then applied to the hidden test set, which is ordinary model selection, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The manuscript does contain overclaims that its own tables contradict: Section 3.1 gives no ensemble result for BraTS-GoAT; Table 3 shows DAEnsemble underperforming DANN alone on ET and TC Dice (75.78 vs 81.68 and 73.86 vs 77.30); and Section 3.3/Table 4 reports MA3T-F PSNR 16.24 versus Attention-UNet 20.46 while the text concedes 'these results are not state of the art.' These are correctness or evidence gaps, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim is empirical, so the ledger lists the hand-chosen hyperparameters and post-processing rules that determine the reported scores, plus the domain assumptions about annotation quality and validation-to-test transfer. The MA3T-Former architecture is an invented entity with no independent evidence because it was not validated beyond a short training run and no code was released.

free parameters (4)
  • data augmentation probability = 10%
    Selected by comparing validation Dice/HD95 across 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% in Table 2; no statistical significance test.
  • post-processing ratio thresholds = ET/WT < 0.03, SNFH/WT == 1
    Ad hoc rules to relabel ET/SNFH voxels as NETC; set without ablation.
  • initial learning rate alpha0 = 6e-5
    Used for optimized U-Net; chosen by experimentation.
  • number of training epochs = 100 (optimized U-Net), 1500 (AUNet), 20 (MA3T-F)
    Varied per model; MA3T-F only 20 epochs, making comparisons to 1500-epoch baselines unequal.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption BraTS annotations are reliable ground truth
    All metrics computed against expert annotations from BraTS 2024; the paper does not assess annotation noise.
  • domain assumption Validation performance predicts test performance
    Model selection (augmentation probability, checkpoint selection) uses validation metrics; the paper assumes transfer to hidden test.
  • domain assumption Hyperparameters from cited literature are appropriate for these tasks
    For nnU-Net, U-Mamba, Swin-UNETR, DANN, the paper defers to 'corresponding literature' instead of tuning on these datasets.
  • domain assumption The 'GrokFast' algorithm accelerates generalization without harming final accuracy
    The paper claims faster generalization from GrokFast but provides no controlled comparison at matched epochs.
invented entities (2)
  • MA3T-Former (Mask Aware 3D T-Former)
    purpose: New 3D inpainting model combining T-former with gated linear attention, Fourier blocks, noise inpainting, and GrokFast training
    Only evaluated on BraTS inpainting validation after 20 epochs (SSIM 0.9996, PSNR 16.24), worse than baselines; no external validation or code.
  • Gated Fourier Block variant
    purpose: Enhance global contextual learning in MA3T-Former
    No ablation isolating its contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Ensemble Approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation and Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEK42DXB

@misc{pith2026241117617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Ensemble Approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation and Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEK42DXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17617}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of machine learning in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specifically in neuroimaging, is proving to be incredibly effective, leading to better diagnostic accuracy, accelerated image analysis, and data-driven insights, which can potentially transform patient care. Deep learning models utilize multiple layers of processing to capture intricate details of complex data, which can then be used on a variety of tasks, including brain tumor classification, segmentation, image synthesis, and registration. Previous research demonstrates high accuracy in tumor segmentation using various model architectures, including nn-UNet and Swin-UNet. U-Mamba, which uses state space modeling, also achieves high accuracy in medical image segmentation. To leverage these models, we propose a deep learning framework that ensembles these state-of-the-art architectures to achieve accurate segmentation and produce finely synthesized images.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of our proposed Mask Aware 3D T-Former network for inpainting tasks. There are 2 flavours of the Transformer block, a standard gated linear attention block, and a gated linear attention block with an additional gated Fourier block for enhanced global contextual learning. MA3T-former We propose a novel architecture inspired by recent advance￾ments in inpainting and synthesis tasks, leveraging improved at… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Clinically-Informed Preprocessing Improves Stroke Segmentation in Low-Resource Settings

    eess.IV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A clinically-informed preprocessing pipeline improves CT-based ischemic stroke lesion segmentation by 38% Dice over baseline nnU-Net, and further by 21% with CTA vessel maps.

  2. GANet-Seg: Adversarial Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation with Hybrid Generative Models

    eess.IV 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    GANet-Seg couples a pretrained normal-brain GAN with a U-Net for brain tumor segmentation, but its own Table 2 contradicts the abstract's claim of better HD95 than baselines.

  3. How We Won the ISLES'24 Challenge by Preprocessing

    eess.IV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Skull stripping with SynthStrip and custom CT intensity windowing improved stroke lesion segmentation enough for a standard nnU-Net to win the ISLES'24 challenge.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Survival outcomes and prognostic factors in glioblastoma

    NF Brown, D Ottaviani, J Tazare, J Gregson, N Kitchen, S Brandner, N Fersht, and P Mulholland. Survival outcomes and prognostic factors in glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel), 14(13):3161, Jun 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Inter-rater agreement in glioma segmen- tations on longitudinal mri

    M Visser, DMJ M¨ uller, RJM van Duijn, M Smits, N Verburg, EJ Hendriks, RJA Nabuurs, JCJ Bot, RS Eijgelaar, M Witte, MB van Herk, F Barkhof, PC de Witt Hamer, and JC de Munck. Inter-rater agreement in glioma segmen- tations on longitudinal mri. Neuroimage Clin , 22:101727, 2019. Epub 2019 Feb 22

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    The 2024 brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post-treatment mri

    Maria Correia de Verdier et al. The 2024 brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post-treatment mri. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18368, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    How we won brats 2023 adult glioma challenge? just faking it! enhanced synthetic data augmentation and model ensemble for brain tumour segmentation

    Andr´ e Ferreira et al. How we won brats 2023 adult glioma challenge? just faking it! enhanced synthetic data augmentation and model ensemble for brain tumour segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17317 , 2024

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Lienkamp, Thomas Brox, and Olaf Ronneberger

    ¨Ozg¨ un C ¸ i¸ cek, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Soeren S. Lienkamp, Thomas Brox, and Olaf Ronneberger. 3d u-net: Learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse an- notation. CoRR, abs/1606.06650, 2016

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    All-net: Anatomical information lesion-wise loss function integrated into neural network for multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation

    Hang Zhang, Jinwei Zhang, Chao Li, Elizabeth M Sweeney, Pascal Spincemaille, Thanh D Nguyen, Susan A Gauthier, Yi Wang, and Melanie Marcille. All-net: Anatomical information lesion-wise loss function integrated into neural network for multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation. NeuroImage: Clinical, 32:102854, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    The use of robust local haus- dorff distances in accuracy assessment for image alignment of brain mri

    Eric Billet, Andriy Fedorov, and Nikos Chrisochoides. The use of robust local haus- dorff distances in accuracy assessment for image alignment of brain mri. Insight Journal (January-June 2008), http://hdl. handle. net/1926/1354 , 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Adversarial inpainting of medical image modalities

    Karim Armanious, Youssef Mecky, Sergios Gatidis, and Bin Yang. Adversarial inpainting of medical image modalities. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 3267–

    work page 2019

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Deep learning-based 3d inpainting of brain mr images

    Seung Kwan Kang, Seong A Shin, Seongho Seo, Min Soo Byun, Dong Young Lee, Yu Kyeong Kim, Dong Soo Lee, and Jae Sung Lee. Deep learning-based 3d inpainting of brain mr images. Scientific reports, 11(1):1673, 2021. 12 J.E. Heras Rivera et al

    2021

  2. [10]

    High-resolution mri brain inpainting

    Mohamed Almansour, Nagia M Ghanem, and Soheir Bassiouny. High-resolution mri brain inpainting. In 2021 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    An optimization framework for processing and trans- fer learning for the brain tumor segmentation

    Tianyi Ren, Ethan Honey, Harshitha Rebala, Abhishek Sharma, Agamdeep Chopra, and Mehmet Kurt. An optimization framework for processing and trans- fer learning for the brain tumor segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07008 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Op- timized u-net for brain tumor segmentation

    Micha l Futrega, Alexandre Milesi, Micha l Marcinkiewicz, and Pablo Ribalta. Op- timized u-net for brain tumor segmentation. In International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pages 15–29. Springer, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Rhizonet segments plant roots to assess biomass and growth for enabling self- driving labs

    Zineb Sordo, Peter Andeer, James Sethian, Trent Northen, and Daniela Ushizima. Rhizonet segments plant roots to assess biomass and growth for enabling self- driving labs. Scientific Reports, 14(1):12907, Jun 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon AA 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

  8. [16]

    Fabian Isensee, Tassilo Wald, Constantin Ulrich, Michael Baumgartner, Saikat Roy, Klaus Maier-Hein, and Paul F. Jaeger. nnu-net revisited: A call for rigorous vali- dation in 3d medical image segmentation, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Transform- ers in medical image segmentation: A review

    Hanguang Xiao, Li Li, Qiyuan Liu, Xiuhong Zhu, and Qihang Zhang. Transform- ers in medical image segmentation: A review. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 84:104791, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    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 Brainlesion Workshop , pages 272–284. Springer, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation

    Jun Ma, Feifei Li, and Bo Wang. U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04722 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Re-diffinet: Modeling discrepancy in tumor segmentation using diffusion models

    Tianyi Ren, Abhishek Sharma, Juampablo E Heras Rivera, Lakshmi Harshitha Rebala, Ethan Honey, Agamdeep Chopra, and Mehmet Kurt. Re-diffinet: Modeling discrepancy in tumor segmentation using diffusion models. InMedical Imaging with Deep Learning, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks

    Yaroslav Ganin et al. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(59):1–35, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    J. E. H. Rivera, H. Rebala, T. Ren, A. Sharma, and M. Kurt. Improving glioma segmentation in low-resolution domains with transfer learning. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation, 2018

    Jun Ma, Feifei Li, and Bo Wang. U-mamba: Enhancing long-range dependency for biomedical image segmentation, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    3D Inception-Based TransMorph: Pre-and Post-operative Multi-contrast MRI Regis- tration in Brain Tumors

    Javid Abderezaei, Aymeric Pionteck, Agamdeep Chopra, and Mehmet Kurt. 3D Inception-Based TransMorph: Pre-and Post-operative Multi-contrast MRI Regis- tration in Brain Tumors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04579 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde- Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde- Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A. Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Wasserstein gan, 2017

    Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and L´ eon Bottou. Wasserstein gan, 2017. An Ensemble Approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation and Synthesis 13

    2017

  20. [28]

    Improved training of wasserstein gans, 2017

    Ishaan Gulrajani, Faruk Ahmed, Martin Arjovsky, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. Improved training of wasserstein gans, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    T-former: An efficient transformer for image inpainting

    Ye Deng, Siqi Hui, Sanping Zhou, Deyu Meng, and Jinjun Wang. T-former: An efficient transformer for image inpainting. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Inter- national Conference on Multimedia , MM ’22. ACM, October 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations, 2021

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhat- tacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Grokfast: Ac- celerated grokking by amplifying slow gradients, 2024

    Jaerin Lee, Bong Gyun Kang, Kihoon Kim, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Grokfast: Ac- celerated grokking by amplifying slow gradients, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Biomedparse: a biomedical foundation model for image parsing of everything everywhere all at once, 2024

    Theodore Zhao, Yu Gu, Jianwei Yang, Naoto Usuyama, Ho Hin Lee, Tristan Nau- mann, Jianfeng Gao, Angela Crabtree, Jacob Abel, Christine Moung-Wen, Brian Piening, Carlo Bifulco, Mu Wei, Hoifung Poon, and Sheng Wang. Biomedparse: a biomedical foundation model for image parsing of...

    2024

Pith tools

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