Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

LQ-Adapter: ViT-Adapter with Learnable Queries for Gallbladder Cancer Detection from Ultrasound Image

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A lightweight adapter with learnable queries raises gallbladder cancer detection mIoU by 5.4% over ViT-Adapter on ultrasound, and beats DETR-based DINO and FocalNet-DINO by 5.8% and 2.7%.

desk verdict Plausible incremental adapter tweak whose headline SOTA claim isn't yet supported by controlled baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00374 v1 pith:7UKNSF3H submitted 2024-11-30 cs.CV

Chetan Madan , Mayuna Gupta , Soumen Basu , Pankaj Gupta , Chetan Arora This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords gallbladdercancerdetectionultrasoundimagingViTadapterlearnablequeriesobjectmedicalparameter-efficientfine-tuningfoundationmodels
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 claims that the limiting factor in adapting a frozen Vision Transformer (ViT) to detect gallbladder cancer in ultrasound images is not the backbone but the adapter's spatial prior module, which is too primitive to capture small, variable pathological regions. The authors propose LQ-Adapter, a modified ViT-Adapter design that adds learnable content queries to the extractor blocks, letting the model attend to task-relevant features through cross-attention. On the GBCU dataset, LQ-Adapter improves mean Intersection-over-Union by 5.4% over ViT-Adapter, 5.8% over DINO, and 2.7% over FocalNet-DINO, while using roughly half the trainable parameters of the DETR baselines. The same design also yields comparable polyp-detection performance on Kvasir-Seg and, when used as a region-of-interest generator in GBCNet, pushes classification accuracy to 93.4%, surpassing the prior state of the art. If these results hold, they suggest that parameter-efficient adapter tuning of a frozen foundation model can outperform heavy task-specific detection architectures on small medical datasets.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the learnable content query (LQ) block inserted into the adapter's extractor modules. These queries, implemented as tensors matching the spatial-prior dimensionality, are first cross-attended with frozen ViT backbone features and then with multi-scale spatial features, producing updated queries that refine localization cues. The paper's equations (5) and (6) define this two-step cross-attention update, which the authors argue couples information-rich backbone features with spatial priors more effectively than the primitive CNN prior alone.

What would settle it

Retrain DINO and FocalNet-DINO on GBCU using the same data splits, augmentation, learning-rate schedule, and evaluation protocol as LQ-Adapter, and release the exact hyperparameters; if their mIoU rises to match or exceed LQ-Adapter's 0.719, the claimed state-of-the-art advantage would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ViT-Adapter's CNN-based spatial prior module is the bottleneck for localizing small, variably appearing pathologies in ultrasound, and that replacing its role with learnable content queries—zero-initialized tensors co-optimized through cross-attention with backbone features and spatial priors—substantially improves localization. LQ-Adapter achieves a mean IoU of 0.719 on GBCU, surpassing ViT-Adapter (0.665), DINO (0.661), and FocalNet-DINO (0.692), while keeping the ViT backbone frozen and training only the adapter. The paper further demonstrates that the adapter's regions-of-interest improve a downstream GBC classifier (93.4% accuracy) and that the design transfers to polyp detection in colonoscopy, where it matches FocalNet-DINO's mIoU (0.85) with about 56.5% fewer trainable parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The reported improvements over DINO and FocalNet-DINO rest on the assumption that those baselines were trained or fine-tuned fairly and comparably on the GBCU dataset, but the paper does not describe their training recipe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LQ-Adapter establishes a new state of the art for GBC detection on the GBCU ultrasound dataset, with mIoU 0.719 and near-perfect precision/recall.
  • Using LQ-Adapter's ROI as input to GBCNet's MS-SoP classifier yields 93.4% classification accuracy, surpassing both the original Faster-RCNN-based GBCNet and RadFormer.
  • The method transfers to polyp detection on Kvasir-Seg, matching FocalNet-DINO's mIoU while using roughly half the trainable parameters, indicating generalizability across medical imaging modalities.
  • The frozen-backbone, adapter-only training regime requires substantially fewer trainable parameters than DETR-based detectors, making it more practical for small medical datasets and limited compute.
  • Zero-initialization of the learnable queries is empirically better than random initialization, and adding LQ at all adapter blocks yields the largest gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The learnable-query mechanism may generalize to other small-lesion detection tasks in ultrasound or mammography, where flexible spatial attention matters more than a fixed CNN prior.
  • The parameter-efficiency result suggests that foundation-model adapters could be a default starting point for medical detection when annotated data are scarce, potentially reducing the carbon and compute cost of medical AI development.
  • If the LQ design proves robust across more modalities, it might be combined with weakly supervised or video-based methods (like masked autoencoders for ultrasound videos) to propagate localization knowledge across frames.
  • A direct extension the paper does not test is whether LQ-Adapter's advantage persists when the ViT backbone is unfrozen or when the spatial prior module is replaced by a stronger but still lightweight CNN; those ablations would clarify what exactly the queries contribute.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LQ-Adapter, a lightweight adapter for frozen ViT backbones that augments the ViT-Adapter design with learnable content queries in the extractor blocks. The method is evaluated for gallbladder cancer (GBC) detection on the GBCU ultrasound dataset, reporting mIoU gains of 5.4% over ViT-Adapter, 5.8% over DINO, and 2.7% over FocalNet-DINO (Table 1). The authors further integrate LQ-Adapter as the ROI generator in GBCNet and report improved GBC classification accuracy over the prior SOTA (Table 2), and they report polyp detection results on Kvasir-Seg (Table 3). The central claim is that learnable queries provide a more parameter-efficient detector that outperforms DETR-based SOTA on GBCU.

Significance. If the headline GBCU results hold under fair comparison, LQ-Adapter is a meaningful contribution: it offers an adapter-based alternative to DETR variants for medical detection, with roughly half the trainable parameters and strong localization on small, low-quality ultrasound pathologies. The paper's use of patient-level 5-fold cross-validation and reported error bars on the main GBCU results are good empirical practices, and the public code release supports reproducibility. The main significance currently hinges on whether the Table 1 comparisons are controlled, because the proposed gains are modest in absolute terms (e.g., mIoU 0.719 vs. 0.692) and a backbone or training-recipe discrepancy could easily explain them.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1 Contribution (4) and §6 Conclusion] The paper explicitly claims DDSM validation twice: Contribution (4) says 'We also experimentally demonstrate the applicability of LQ-Adapter on DDSM dataset for detecting breast lesions in mammography,' and the Conclusion says LQ-Adapter 'extends applicability to breast lesion detection.' However, Section 5 contains no DDSM experiments, no DDSM results table, and no description of a mammography setup. This is a stated contribution that is entirely unsupported in the manuscript. The authors should either add the DDSM experiments with the same level of reporting as the other datasets or remove these claims from the contributions and conclusion.
  2. [§5.1, §5.3, Table 1] The headline SOTA claim rests on uncontrolled baseline comparisons. Section 5.1 states only that 'We used a Uni-perceiver backbone pre-trained on ImageNet-1k' and that the backbone was frozen; it does not state what backbone the ViT-Adapter baseline uses, nor does Section 5.3 give any training protocol for DINO or FocalNet-DINO (epochs, batch size, resolution, learning-rate schedule, augmentations, or whether COCO-pretrained weights were fine-tuned). Since ViT-Adapter's design is centered on adapting a frozen ViT, a backbone mismatch between LQ-Adapter and the ViT-Adapter row in Table 1 could produce the reported 5.4% mIoU difference without any benefit from the learnable queries in Eqs. (5)-(6). Similarly, DETR variants are schedule-sensitive, so the reported 0.661/0.692 mIoU for DINO/FocalNet-DINO may be underestimates if they were undertrained. The authors must specify the exact backbone and training recipe for every baseline, or compare all methods under matched settings, to make the claimed gains credible.
  3. [§5.3, §5.5, Table 3] The text overstates the Kvasir-Seg results relative to what is shown. Section 5.5 says LQ-Adapter 'holds comparable performance against FocalNet-DINO and DINO DETR,' yet Section 5.3 claims 'we achieve superior localization' and the abstract says 'Superior performance of our design on this problem.' Table 3 shows LQ-Adapter at 0.850 mIoU, exactly tied with FocalNet-DINO at 0.850 and 0.002 above DINO at 0.848, and the table has no error bars, so 'superior' is not supported. Because the generality claim is a contribution, Table 3 should report means with standard deviations across folds (or another variance estimate) and the wording should be adjusted to describe the result as comparable with a parameter-count advantage, unless statistical significance is established.
  4. [§3.5, §5.1] The method description is not reproducible as written. The paper never specifies the detection/decoding head that converts the adapter's multi-scale features F_sp^i into a bounding box, nor does it state the loss function used for localization. Equations (5) and (6) define updates to learnable queries, but the connection between the final LQ output and the predicted box coordinates is absent. Section 5.1 describes optimizer and epoch settings but no training objective or inference procedure. The authors should add a description of the output head, the loss (e.g., L1 + GIoU), and how the predicted box is derived from the final features, because without this the central detection result cannot be reproduced from the manuscript.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2 caption and Section 3.3] The figure caption contains a typo: 'backone' should be 'backbone.' In Section 3.3, the sentence 'This approach could prove to be beneficial for In medical imaging tasks' has a stray 'In' and should be reworded.
  2. [Equations (2)-(6)] The tensor-shape notation is garbled; for example, Section 3.5 writes 'F i vit ∈ R H×W 162 ×D' where the intended shapes appear to be collapsed subscripts. Please define all shapes cleanly with standard notation (e.g., H/16 × W/16 × D) and ensure the dimensions of LQ^i and the cross-attention operands in Eqs. (5)-(6) are compatible.
  3. [References] References [17] and [18] are the same paper, and references [46] and [47] are also the same paper (DINO). The duplicate entries should be merged or distinguished correctly.
  4. [§5.3] The paper states 'Focal Modulation Backbone-based DETR [35, 45]' but [45] is the Focal Modulation Networks paper and [35] is 'A strong and reproducible object detector with only public datasets'; neither is a direct DINO+FocalNet citation. Please cite the exact detector variant used for the FocalNet-DINO baseline.
  5. [§5.3, Figure 1] The parameter-count comparison is misstated: 135.5 million is about 59% of 228.1 million, not 56%, and the phrase '135,530,325(130 Million)' mixes exact and rounded numbers. Please give consistent counts and percentages, and clarify whether the ViT-Adapter parameter count uses the same Uni-perceiver backbone as LQ-Adapter.
  6. [Table 1 caption] The caption contains a stray fragment 'FocalNet-DINO' before the metrics line; this appears to be an editing artifact and should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed gains are empirical benchmark results, not derived from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: LQ-Adapter is a modified adapter with learnable content queries, and its mIoU improvements over ViT-Adapter, DINO, and FocalNet-DINO in Tables 1 and 3 are measured on held-out patient-level splits of GBCU and Kvasir-Seg. No equation in Section 3 defines performance in terms of the reported improvements, and no parameter is fitted to the target metric. The design choices (number of LQ blocks, zero initialization) are ablated and tuned on the same dataset, which is selection or tuning rather than circularity. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors (GBCNet dataset and architecture, RadFormer), but these are used as dataset providers, architectural baselines, or comparison targets, not as evidence that the proposed mechanism works; the improvement over GBCNet with Faster-RCNN ROI in Table 2 is again an empirical measurement. Likewise, the mention of DDSM in the abstract and conclusion is unsupported by any experiment in Section 5, but that is a missing-evidence or correctness issue, not circularity. Concerns about baseline training fairness (unreported recipes for DINO and FocalNet-DINO) affect the reliability of the SOTA claim but are not circular. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

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

The paper is an empirical deep learning study, so the central claim rests on dataset assumptions and hyperparameter choices rather than on mathematical axioms. The learnable queries are standard parameters, not new physical or formal entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of blocks with learnable queries = All adapter blocks
    Chosen based on the ablation study in Fig 4a; using all blocks gave the best mIoU on GBCU.
  • LQ initialization scheme = Zero initialization
    Chosen based on the ablation in Fig 4b; zero init outperformed random init on GBCU.
  • Training hyperparameters = lr=6e-5, weight decay=0.005, layer decay=0.65 per 12 layers, 60 epochs, batch size=2
    Standard choices, but not justified by ablations; they affect the final reported performance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Bounding box overlap (mIoU) is a valid proxy for GBC detection quality.
    The paper uses mIoU as the primary metric for localization, assuming better box overlap leads to better clinical detection.
  • domain assumption Features from a frozen ImageNet-pretrained Uni-perceiver backbone transfer to ultrasound images.
    The method relies on a frozen backbone; if the backbone does not capture ultrasound-specific features, the adapters cannot compensate.
  • domain assumption The GBCU dataset's ground-truth bounding boxes are accurate and consistently annotated.
    All IoU scores are computed against these boxes, and no annotation quality assessment is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LQ-Adapter: ViT-Adapter with Learnable Queries for Gallbladder Cancer Detection from Ultrasound Image." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UKNSF3H

@misc{pith2026241200374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LQ-Adapter: ViT-Adapter with Learnable Queries for Gallbladder Cancer Detection from Ultrasound Image},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UKNSF3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00374}
}
read the original abstract

We focus on the problem of Gallbladder Cancer (GBC) detection from Ultrasound (US) images. The problem presents unique challenges to modern Deep Neural Network (DNN) techniques due to low image quality arising from noise, textures, and viewpoint variations. Tackling such challenges would necessitate precise localization performance by the DNN to identify the discerning features for the downstream malignancy prediction. While several techniques have been proposed in the recent years for the problem, all of these methods employ complex custom architectures. Inspired by the success of foundational models for natural image tasks, along with the use of adapters to fine-tune such models for the custom tasks, we investigate the merit of one such design, ViT-Adapter, for the GBC detection problem. We observe that ViT-Adapter relies predominantly on a primitive CNN-based spatial prior module to inject the localization information via cross-attention, which is inefficient for our problem due to the small pathology sizes, and variability in their appearances due to non-regular structure of the malignancy. In response, we propose, LQ-Adapter, a modified Adapter design for ViT, which improves localization information by leveraging learnable content queries over the basic spatial prior module. Our method surpasses existing approaches, enhancing the mean IoU (mIoU) scores by 5.4%, 5.8%, and 2.7% over ViT-Adapters, DINO, and FocalNet-DINO, respectively on the US image-based GBC detection dataset, and establishing a new state-of-the-art (SOTA). Additionally, we validate the applicability and effectiveness of LQ-Adapter on the Kvasir-Seg dataset for polyp detection from colonoscopy images. Superior performance of our design on this problem as well showcases its capability to handle diverse medical imaging tasks across different datasets. Code is released at https://github.com/ChetanMadan/LQ-Adapter

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00374 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We compare model sizes and performance (mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic architecture diagram of the proposed LQ-Adapter. The learnable content queries are added to the extractor blocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample images from GBCU [3], and Kvasir-Seg [23] datasets. Malignant and benign samples from GBCU are on the left and right, respectively. Kvasir-Seg dataset [23] does not contain control images, so both sides showed images with polyp tissue 3.4. Spatial Prior Injector Inspired from ViT-Adapter, the primary function of the prior injector is to incorporate the priors into the backbone. To do so, the injector block co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation Study. (a) Shows the effect of the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We motivate the use of learnable content queries in the adapter design. We show sample localizations by ViT-Adapter [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers

    Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254, 2021. 3, 4

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Focusmae: Gallbladder cancer detection from ultrasound videos with focused masked autoencoders

    Soumen Basu, Mayuna Gupta, Chetan Madan, Pankaj Gupta, and Chetan Arora. Focusmae: Gallbladder cancer detection from ultrasound videos with focused masked autoencoders. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11715–11725, 2024. 2, 8

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Surpassing the human accuracy: Detecting gallbladder cancer from usg images with curricu- lum learning

    Soumen Basu, Mayank Gupta, Pratyaksha Rana, Pankaj Gupta, and Chetan Arora. Surpassing the human accuracy: Detecting gallbladder cancer from usg images with curricu- lum learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20886–20896, 2022. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Radformer: Transformers with global–local attention for interpretable and accurate gallbladder cancer detection

    Soumen Basu, Mayank Gupta, Pratyaksha Rana, Pankaj Gupta, and Chetan Arora. Radformer: Transformers with global–local attention for interpretable and accurate gallbladder cancer detection. Medical Image Analysis , 83:102676, 2023. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Gall bladder cancer detection from us images with only image level labels

    Soumen Basu, Ashish Papanai, Mayank Gupta, Pankaj Gupta, and Chetan Arora. Gall bladder cancer detection from us images with only image level labels. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, pages 206–215. Springer, 2023. 1, 2

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Unsupervised con- trastive learning of image representations from ultrasound videos with hard negative mining

    Soumen Basu, Somanshu Singla, Mayank Gupta, Pratyaksha Rana, Pankaj Gupta, and Chetan Arora. Unsupervised con- trastive learning of image representations from ultrasound videos with hard negative mining. In MICCAI, pages 423–

    work page

  7. [7]

    End- to-end object detection with transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End- to-end object detection with transformers. In ECCV, pages 213–229. Springer, 2020. 2, 4

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Ct manifestations of gallbladder carcinoma based on neural net- work

    Yigang Chang, Qian Wu, Limin Chi, and Huaying Huo. Ct manifestations of gallbladder carcinoma based on neural net- work. Neural Computing and Applications, pages 1–6, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Sam-adapter: Adapting segment anything in underperformed scenes

    Tianrun Chen, Lanyun Zhu, Chaotao Deng, Runlong Cao, Yan Wang, Shangzhan Zhang, Zejian Li, Lingyun Sun, Ying Zang, and Papa Mao. Sam-adapter: Adapting segment anything in underperformed scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages ...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions

    Zhe Chen, Yuchen Duan, Wenhai Wang, Junjun He, Tong Lu, Jifeng Dai, and Yu Qiao. Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08534, 2022. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database. In CVPR09, 2009. 5

    2009

  4. [12]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint a...

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tsaftaris, and Timothy Hospedales

    Raman Dutt, Linus Ericsson, Pedro Sanchez, Sotirios A. Tsaftaris, and Timothy Hospedales. Parameter-efficient fine- tuning for medical image analysis: The missed opportunity,

  6. [14]

    Mayank Gupta, Soumen Basu, and Chetan Arora. How reli- able are the metrics used for assessing reliability in medical imaging? In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 149–

  7. [15]

    Applica- tions of artificial intelligence in biliary tract cancers

    Pankaj Gupta, Soumen Basu, and Chetan Arora. Applica- tions of artificial intelligence in biliary tract cancers. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, pages 1–12, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Deep-learning enabled ultrasound based detection of gallbladder cancer in northern india: a prospective diagnos- tic study

    Pankaj Gupta, Soumen Basu, Pratyaksha Rana, Usha Dutta, Raghuraman Soundararajan, Daneshwari Kalage, Manika Chhabra, Shravya Singh, Thakur Deen Yadav, Vikas Gupta, et al. Deep-learning enabled ultrasound based detection of gallbladder cancer in northern india: a prospective di...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Deep- learning models for differentiation of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and gallbladder cancer on ultrasound

    Pankaj Gupta, Soumen Basu, Thakur Deen Yadav, Lileswar Kaman, Santosh Irrinki, Harjeet Singh, Gaurav Prakash, Parikshaa Gupta, Ritambhra Nada, Usha Dutta, et al. Deep- learning models for differentiation of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and gallbladder cancer on ultrasound...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Deep- learning models for differentiation of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and gallbladder cancer on ultrasound

    Pankaj Gupta, Soumen Basu, Thakur Deen Yadav, Lileswar Kaman, Santosh Irrinki, Harjeet Singh, Gaurav Prakash, Parikshaa Gupta, Ritambhra Nada, Usha Dutta, et al. Deep- learning models for differentiation of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and gallbladder cancer on ultrasound...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 3

    2016

  12. [20]

    Current status of the digital database for screening mammography

    Michael Heath, Kevin Bowyer, Daniel Kopans, P Kegelmeyer Jr, Richard Moore, Kyong Chang, and S Munishkumaran. Current status of the digital database for screening mammography. In Digital Mammography: Nijmegen, 1998, pages 457–460. Springer, 1998. 2

    1998

  13. [21]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations , 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  14. [22]

    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. 3

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset

    Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, P ˚al Halvorsen, Thomas De Lange, Dag Johansen, and H˚avard D Johansen. Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset. In MultiMedia modeling: 26th international conference, MMM 2020, Daejeon, South Korea, January 5–8, 2020, proceed- ings...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Dn-detr: Accelerate detr training by intro- ducing query denoising

    Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Shilong Liu, Jian Guo, Lionel M Ni, and Lei Zhang. Dn-detr: Accelerate detr training by intro- ducing query denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 13619–13627, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [25]

    Univs: Unified and universal video segmentation with prompts as queries

    Minghan Li, Shuai Li, Xindong Zhang, and Lei Zhang. Univs: Unified and universal video segmentation with prompts as queries. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 3227–3238, June 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Cross-domain few-shot learning with task-specific adapters, 2022

    Wei-Hong Li, Xialei Liu, and Hakan Bilen. Cross-domain few-shot learning with task-specific adapters, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  19. [27]

    Exploring plain vision transformer backbones for object de- tection

    Yanghao Li, Hanzi Mao, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. Exploring plain vision transformer backbones for object de- tection. In European conference on computer vision , pages 280–296. Springer, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    Sparse action tube detection

    Yixuan Li, Zhenzhi Wang, Zhifeng Li, and Limin Wang. Sparse action tube detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33:1740–1752, 2024. 4

    2024

  21. [29]

    Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr

    Shilong Liu, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Xiao Yang, Xianbiao Qi, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Dab-detr: Dynamic anchor boxes are better queries for detr. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12329, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Detection transformer with stable matching, 2023

    Shilong Liu, Tianhe Ren, Jiayu Chen, Zhaoyang Zeng, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Hongyang Li, Jun Huang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Detection transformer with stable matching, 2023. 2

    2023

  23. [31]

    Dora: Weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation

    Shih-Yang Liu, Chien-Yi Wang, Hongxu Yin, Pavlo Molchanov, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Min-Hung Chen. Dora: Weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09353, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  25. [33]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. 3

    2021

  26. [34]

    Efficient parametrization of multi-domain deep neural net- works, 2018

    Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. Efficient parametrization of multi-domain deep neural net- works, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    A strong and reproducible object detector with only public datasets, 2023

    Tianhe Ren, Jianwei Yang, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Hongyang Li, Zhaoyang Zeng, and Lei Zhang. A strong and reproducible object detector with only public datasets, 2023. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  28. [36]

    Detecting and classifying lesions in mammo- grams with deep learning

    Dezs ˝o Ribli, Anna Horv´ath, Zsuzsa Unger, P´eter Pollner, and Istv´an Csabai. Detecting and classifying lesions in mammo- grams with deep learning. Scientific reports, 8(1):1–7, 2018. 6

    2018

  29. [37]

    Sparse semi-detr: Sparse learnable queries for semi-supervised object detection

    Tahira Shehzadi, Khurram Azeem Hashmi, Didier Stricker, and Muhammad Zeshan Afzal. Sparse semi-detr: Sparse learnable queries for semi-supervised object detection. ArXiv, abs/2404.01819, 2024. 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Visual query tuning: Towards effective usage of intermediate representa- tions for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning

    Cheng-Hao Tu, Zheda Mai, and Wei-Lun Chao. Visual query tuning: Towards effective usage of intermediate representa- tions for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 3

    2017

  32. [40]

    K-adapter: Infusing knowledge into pre-trained models with adapters

    Ruize Wang, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Zhongyu Wei, Xuan- jing Huang, Guihong Cao, Daxin Jiang, Ming Zhou, et al. K-adapter: Infusing knowledge into pre-trained models with adapters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01808, 2020. 2

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Medclip: Contrastive learning from unpaired medical images and text

    Zifeng Wang, Zhenbang Wu, Dinesh Agarwal, and Jimeng Sun. Medclip: Contrastive learning from unpaired medical images and text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10163, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Medical sam adapter: Adapting seg- ment anything model for medical image segmentation, 2023

    Junde Wu, Wei Ji, Yuanpei Liu, Huazhu Fu, Min Xu, Yanwu Xu, and Yueming Jin. Medical sam adapter: Adapting seg- ment anything model for medical image segmentation, 2023. 3

    2023

  35. [43]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for pre-trained vision models: A survey

    Yi Xin, Siqi Luo, Haodi Zhou, Junlong Du, Xiaohong Liu, Yue Fan, Qing Li, and Yuntao Du. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for pre-trained vision models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02242, 2024. 3

    2024

  36. [44]

    Multi-modal learnable queries for image aesthetics assessment

    Zhiwei Xiong, Yunfan Zhang, Zhiqi Shen, Peiran Ren, and Han Yu. Multi-modal learnable queries for image aesthetics assessment. ArXiv, abs/2405.01326, 2024. 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Focal modulation networks, 2022

    Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Xiyang Dai, and Jianfeng Gao. Focal modulation networks, 2022. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2022

  38. [47]

    Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605, 2022. 2, 6, 7

    2022 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Manning, and Curtis P

    Yuhao Zhang, Hang Jiang, Yasuhide Miura, Christopher D. Manning, and Curtis P. Langlotz. Contrastive learning of medical visual representations from paired images and text. In Zachary Lipton, Rajesh Ranganath, Mark Sendak, Michael Sjoding, and Serena Yeung, editors, Proceeding...

    2022

  40. [49]

    Enhancing detrs variants through improved content query and similar query aggregation

    Yingying Zhang, Chuangji Shi, Xin Guo, Jiangwei Lao, Jian Wang, Jiaotuan Wang, and Jingdong Chen. Enhancing detrs variants through improved content query and similar query aggregation. ArXiv, abs/2405.03318, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Deformable detr: Deformable trans- formers for end-to-end object detection

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable detr: Deformable trans- formers for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020. 2

    2010 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Uni-perceiver: Pre- training unified architecture for generic perception for zero- shot and few-shot tasks

    Xizhou Zhu, Jinguo Zhu, Hao Li, Xiaoshi Wu, Hongsheng Li, Xiaohua Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Uni-perceiver: Pre- training unified architecture for generic perception for zero- shot and few-shot tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2022

  43. [52]

    Melo: Low-rank adaptation is better than fine-tuning for medical image diagnosis, 2023

    Yitao Zhu, Zhenrong Shen, Zihao Zhao, Sheng Wang, Xin Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Dinggang Shen, and Qian Wang. Melo: Low-rank adaptation is better than fine-tuning for medical image diagnosis, 2023. 3

    2023

  44. [433]

    Springer, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

Pith tools

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