Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Few-Shot Adaptation of Training-Free Foundation Model for 3D Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frozen SAM2 memory modules can segment 3D medical volumes from a handful of annotated slices, with no training and no manual prompts.

desk verdict Genuinely new training-free SAM2 adaptation with broad results, but the memory mechanism is underspecified and the numbers need code and significance tests before I'd rely on them. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09138 v1 pith:D6BKNX5B submitted 2025-01-15 cs.CV

Xingxin He , Yifan Hu , Zhaoye Zhou , Mohamed Jarraya , Fang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords training-freeadaptationfew-shotsegmentationSAM2medicalimagevolumetricconsistencyprompt-freesupportsetretrieval3Dimaging
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 introduces FATE-SAM, a method for segmenting 3D medical volumes that adapts SAM2 without any fine-tuning and without manual prompts. The core proposal is to treat SAM2's video-memory mechanics as a few-shot learner: a small support set of annotated slices from other patients is retrieved by image-feature similarity, encoded into memory by SAM2's frozen memory encoder, and used as anatomical guidance, while the prediction from the adjacent slice is fed back as volumetric memory. On eleven segmentation tasks spanning CT and MRI, FATE-SAM with 10% of volumes and three support examples per slice reports Dice scores that match or exceed fine-tuned medical SAMs on several datasets and beat supervised baselines trained on the same limited data. If the claim holds, clinical segmentation no longer requires large annotated datasets or expert-provided prompts for each new case.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is SAM2's memory system, specifically the memory encoder and memory attention module. In SAM2 these are designed for video frames; FATE-SAM reuses them to compress two kinds of guidance into a unified memory: retrieved cross-patient support examples ('anatomical memory') and the adjacent slice's prediction ('volumetric memory'). The support-retrieval step is a second key ingredient: it ranks support slices by cosine similarity between the frozen image encoder's embeddings and the test slice's embedding, selecting the top $j$ examples that enter the memory. The mask decoder then reads out a mask from the memory-enriched test embedding, and because the same memory encoder and attention are frozen, the entire adaptation is achieved by data selection and memory composition rather than weight updates.

What would settle it

Run FATE-SAM on a fixed dataset and replace the retrieved support masks with anatomically incorrect or random masks while keeping the support images and all other settings unchanged; a large drop in Dice would confirm the anatomical memory is doing the work, whereas little or no drop would show the paper's stated mechanism is not needed. A complementary check is to compare cosine-similarity retrieval with random support selection; if outcomes match, the retrieval step is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FATE-SAM's central claim is that SAM2's pre-trained memory modules can carry anatomy without being retrained. A test slice is encoded by the frozen image encoder; the top-ranked support slices are selected by cosine similarity in the Hiera feature space; support image embeddings and masks are passed through the memory encoder to form anatomical memory; the previous slice's image embedding and predicted mask are passed through the same encoder to form volumetric memory; the two are concatenated and attended to by the memory-attention module, and the mask decoder outputs the segmentation. The process propagates forward and backward from an initial slice, so each new prediction becomes memory for the next slice. The paper reports that with three support examples per slice and a support set of 10% of the volumes, FATE-SAM achieves average Dice scores of 79.72% on SKI10, 83.30% on ACDC, and 65.10% overall across all eleven tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that SAM2's memory encoder and attention, trained on natural videos, treat masks from other patients' CT/MRI slices and the previous slice's predicted mask as valid memory inputs for medical anatomy despite the domain shift; if those frozen modules do not transfer, the few-shot gain the paper reports would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On SKI10 knee MRI, FATE-SAM reaches 79.72% average Dice, above the supervised Swin-UNETR's 71.39% and MedSAM2's 62.44%, with the largest gains on thin cartilage structures.
  • On ACDC cardiac MRI, FATE-SAM reaches 83.30% average Dice, above U-Net's 73.95% and close to or above the fine-tuned medical SAMs, including 79.00% on the challenging myocardium.
  • Across all eleven tasks, FATE-SAM's 65.10% overall average Dice is higher than the supervised baselines (U-Net 44.93%, UNETR 34.78%, Swin-UNETR 46.62%) and the zero-shot SAM and SAM2 baselines, while remaining below the strongest fine-tuned medical SAM on the hardest abdominal task (BTCV: 67.60% vs SAM-Med3D's 78.22%).
  • Removing the volumetric-consistency memory drops SKI10 average Dice from 79.72% to 70.06%, and the ablation shows the gain concentrates on small cartilage structures, so the adjacent-slice memory is doing measurable work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because no weights are updated, the same frozen SAM2 checkpoint could serve many organs and modalities; adding a new anatomy would reduce to annotating a few slices rather than running a training job.
  • A sharper test than the paper's ablations would measure whether the volumetric-memory benefit decays with distance from the initial slice; if it does, the method is mostly slice-wise support retrieval rather than a true 3D prior.
  • The mechanism is not obviously limited to medicine: any dense-prediction task in which a few reference masks define the target category could in principle be solved by feeding those references through a frozen video-memory pipeline, so FATE-SAM is a candidate template for in-context segmentation generally.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FATE-SAM, a training-free and prompt-free method for 3D medical image segmentation built from frozen SAM2 components. The pipeline retrieves support slices by cosine similarity in Hiera image-embedding space, encodes support masks and the previous slice's predicted mask through SAM2's Memory Encoder, fuses these into unified memory embeddings, applies Memory Attention to the test-slice embedding, and decodes with SAM2's Mask Decoder. The method is evaluated on five public datasets covering 11 segmentation tasks, with ablations on SKI10 for support-set size, number of support examples, similarity metric, prompt type, volumetric consistency, initial slice, and SAM2 weight variant. The authors report the highest total average Dice (65.10%) among compared methods and particularly large gains on knee cartilage segmentation, while also acknowledging computational cost and difficulty with some small structures such as pancreatic cancer.

Significance. If the central claim holds, FATE-SAM is a practically valuable contribution: it demonstrates that frozen, video-pretrained SAM2 memory modules can be reassembled to perform few-shot medical segmentation without gradient updates or manual prompts, and it evaluates this across a broad set of CT and MRI tasks with public benchmarks. The strongest parts of the paper are the breadth of the evaluation, the explicit use of a held-out support set with frozen weights, and the ablation evidence that the volumetric-consistency mechanism contributes substantially (Table VI, average Dice 70.06 to 79.72 on SKI10). However, the significance is tempered by three gaps: the mapping from the described equations to SAM2's real memory interface is not specified in enough detail for reproduction, no statistical significance testing accompanies the numerical comparisons, and the exact preprocessing and implementation details are absent. These issues are fixable but currently leave the central empirical claim less secure than the text suggests.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A-2/3, Eqs. (3)-(6)] The description of how the frozen SAM2 memory modules are invoked is underspecified and load-bearing. In SAM2, memory conditioning is integrated into the Hiera image encoder through memory tokens with specific positional encodings, and the Memory Encoder consumes a particular fusion of image embeddings and downsampled masks. Equations (3)-(6) instead describe generic elementwise additions and concatenation followed by self-/cross-attention, which does not establish that the official SAM2 Memory Encoder and Memory Attention are being used as claimed. The paper also does not state how the j support masks from different volumes and possibly different objects are packaged into memory tokens, nor how the per-object processing mentioned in Section III-A-3 interacts with the fused memory in Eq. (5). Since the paper's novelty is precisely the reassembly of SAM2 modules, the authors should provide exact tensor shapes, the official module names, positional-encoding handling, and either code or precise pseudocode that maps Eqs. (3)-(6) onto the actual SAM2 implementation.
  2. [Table III and Section IV.A] The empirical claim of 'consistently outperforming or matching competitors' is not supported by statistical evidence. Dice scores are reported as mean ± standard deviation over objects, not over volumes or repeated runs; several rows have only one or two objects, so the standard deviation is not a meaningful measure of segmentation variability. There are no significance tests, confidence intervals, or per-volume paired comparisons. Moreover, the per-task results are not uniformly favorable: on BTCV FATE-SAM averages 67.60 versus SAM-Med3D's 78.22, on BraTS 2017 it averages 41.58 versus MedSAM's 46.96, and on MSD Spleen it averages 84.21 versus SAM-Med3D's 94.17. The authors should either add paired statistical tests (for example, Wilcoxon signed-rank or bootstrap over volumes) and report per-volume variability, or substantially soften the consistency claim in the abstract and Section IV.A.
  3. [Section III.B.4 and Section IV] Reproducibility is compromised by the absence of exact preprocessing and implementation details. The authors report only that experiments were run on Rocky Linux 8.8 with an NVIDIA A100 GPU and that SAM2 large weights were frozen. They do not describe how each 3D volume was converted into slices for SAM2's image encoder, what image resolution or spacing was used, how intensity windowing or normalization was applied, whether slices were resampled or padded, how the support set was constructed per task, or how the forward/backward propagation from the initial slice is terminated at volume boundaries. Medical segmentation results are highly sensitive to these choices, and Table III cannot be reproduced without them. The paper should include a complete preprocessing and inference protocol, and preferably release code.
  4. [Section III.B.3 and Section IV.A] The selection of key hyperparameters on SKI10 creates a circularity for the SKI10 result. The text states that j=3 support examples, cosine similarity, the central initial slice, and SAM2 large weights were chosen based on SKI10 ablations, and Section IV.A then reports SKI10 as a headline result (average Dice 79.72). Under these settings, the SKI10 number is not an independent evaluation of the configuration. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this in the limitations or use a nested or separate validation split so that the configuration is not selected and evaluated on the same dataset.
  5. [Eqs. (1)-(2), (5)] The formal notation for support retrieval and memory fusion is internally inconsistent. In Eq. (1), F_s is described as a library of support embeddings, but the dot product f_i · F_s is only defined for vectors, not for a set or library. In Eq. (2), the argmax ranges over both f_s^{ij} and y_s^{ij} with a similarity that is a function of embeddings only, so the mask should not appear in the optimization variable. More substantively, Eq. (5) concatenates one anatomical memory and one volumetric memory, yet the method selects j support examples (with j=3 in the final configuration); how multiple anatomical memories are pooled or ordered before concatenation is never specified. These ambiguities matter because the fusion of support information is the core of the proposed adaptation mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A] There is a missing citation placeholder in the sentence about self-supervised learning techniques ('[?]'), and the sentence is incomplete as printed.
  2. [Section IV.A, ACDC paragraph] The text states that FATE-SAM outperforms 'fine-tuned SAMs like MedSAM2 (67.59%)', but the value 67.59% in Table III is the ACDC average for MedSAM, not MedSAM2 (whose average is 63.19%).
  3. [Table II and References] The row for SAM2 and the row for MedSAM2 both cite reference [33], which is 'Medical SAM 2: Segment medical images as video via segment anything model 2.' This conflates the base model and the fine-tuned medical variant; the authors should clarify which weights and checkpoints were used for each entry.
  4. [Figure 3 and Figure 4] Minor typos in figure text: 'Swim-UNETR' appears in Figure 4 instead of 'Swin-UNETR', and the caption of Figure 3 says '8 competitive methods' while Table III lists nine other methods (UNet, UNETR, Swin-UNETR, SAM, SAM2, MedSAM, MedSAM2, SAM-Med3D, and Ours).
  5. [Section III.B.4] The paper does not report inference runtime or memory usage, despite the discussion noting that the inference process can be computationally intensive; a quantitative runtime comparison would help readers assess the practical trade-off.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: FATE-SAM's pipeline is an empirical reassembly of frozen SAM2 modules with held-out support sets, so no prediction reduces to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

FATE-SAM's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. The method retrieves support slices by cosine similarity in frozen Hiera embeddings (Eq. 2), encodes support masks and adjacent predictions through SAM2's frozen Memory Encoder (Eqs. 3-5), applies Memory Attention (Eq. 6), and decodes masks (Eq. 9). No parameter is fit to the test set: SAM2 weights are kept frozen, the support set is disjoint from the test volumes (10% vs. 90% split), and all benchmark numbers in Table III are produced on public datasets with that same split. The method's central claim is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The load-bearing step that SAM2's video-trained memory modules transfer to cross-patient medical masks is an empirical assumption, and the paper's lack of a direct test of that transfer or of code is a reproducibility/correctness risk, not circularity. The one mild evaluation-pipeline caveat is that hyperparameters such as j=3, cosine similarity, central initial slice, and SAM2-large were chosen by ablations on SKI10 (Section III-B-3), and SKI10 is also a benchmark in Table III; this makes that particular result not fully independent of configuration selection, but it is not a circular derivation and does not affect the held-out nature of the other tasks. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of hand-set hyperparameters and three domain assumptions: frozen SAM2 transfer, feature-space retrieval relevance, and adjacent-slice memory reliability. No new entities are postulated. The free parameters were chosen by ablations on SKI10, not by fitting to the test results, so they do not create circularity for the other ten tasks.

free parameters (5)
  • support set fraction = 10% of volumes
    Chosen as 10% in all experiments; SKI10 ablation in Fig. 5 shows higher support fractions improve Dice, and 10% is the maximum tested. The choice is practical, not derived.
  • number of support examples j = 3
    Selected from SKI10 ablation (Fig. 5) to balance accuracy and compute; 5 examples give slightly higher Dice (80.17 vs 79.72) but more cost.
  • similarity metric = Cosine similarity
    Selected from SKI10 ablation (Table IV); CS gives the highest average Dice (79.72%), though MD and ED are very close.
  • initial slice = central slice
    Selected from SKI10 ablation (Table VII); performance varies little, and the central slice is chosen for intuitive anatomical content.
  • SAM2 pretrained weights = SAM2 large
    Selected from SKI10 ablation (Table VIII); large gives the best average Dice (79.72%), but differences across variants are small.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAM2's frozen image encoder, memory encoder, memory attention, and mask decoder transfer from natural video to medical CT/MRI anatomy.
    Invoked throughout Section III-A; no adaptation or fine-tuning corrects the domain shift.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between Hiera image embeddings selects anatomically relevant support slices.
    Eqs. (1)-(2) in Section III-A-1; retrieval quality is only validated indirectly through final Dice scores.
  • domain assumption The adjacent slice's predicted mask provides reliable volumetric memory.
    Eqs. (4)-(5) in Section III-A-2; error propagation is only partially acknowledged in the discussion.
  • standard math Standard softmax attention and linear projections from SAM2 remain valid when memory comes from support masks rather than video frames.
    Eqs. (6)-(8) reuse the standard attention definitions from the SAM2 architecture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few-Shot Adaptation of Training-Free Foundation Model for 3D Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6BKNX5B

@misc{pith2026250109138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few-Shot Adaptation of Training-Free Foundation Model for 3D Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6BKNX5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09138}
}
read the original abstract

Vision foundation models have achieved remarkable progress across various image analysis tasks. In the image segmentation task, foundation models like the Segment Anything Model (SAM) enable generalizable zero-shot segmentation through user-provided prompts. However, SAM primarily trained on natural images, lacks the domain-specific expertise of medical imaging. This limitation poses challenges when applying SAM to medical image segmentation, including the need for extensive fine-tuning on specialized medical datasets and a dependency on manual prompts, which are both labor-intensive and require intervention from medical experts. This work introduces the Few-shot Adaptation of Training-frEe SAM (FATE-SAM), a novel method designed to adapt the advanced Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM2) for 3D medical image segmentation. FATE-SAM reassembles pre-trained modules of SAM2 to enable few-shot adaptation, leveraging a small number of support examples to capture anatomical knowledge and perform prompt-free segmentation, without requiring model fine-tuning. To handle the volumetric nature of medical images, we incorporate a Volumetric Consistency mechanism that enhances spatial coherence across 3D slices. We evaluate FATE-SAM on multiple medical imaging datasets and compare it with supervised learning methods, zero-shot SAM approaches, and fine-tuned medical SAM methods. Results show that FATE-SAM delivers robust and accurate segmentation while eliminating the need for large annotated datasets and expert intervention. FATE-SAM provides a practical, efficient solution for medical image segmentation, making it more accessible for clinical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Applications of SAM for medical image segmentation: a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Method Pipeline: a) Image Encoding and Support Retrieval: The test slice and all support slices set are encoded into image embeddings, and the most similar support examples are retrieved by ranking the feature similarities between the support image embeddings and the test image embeddings. b) Memory Encoding and Volumetric Consistency: Support examples are encoded into anatomical memory embeddings, while adjacen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Box plots comparison of Dice scores (%) across 8 competitive methods and our method, evaluated on 11 tasks of interest. Each point indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual examples of segmentation results across datasets for different methods. Pink boxes enlarge the segmented objects for enhanced visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Size of support set and support example ablation results on the SKI10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Segment anything in medical images,

    J. Ma, Y . He, F. Li, L. Han, C. You, and B. Wang, “Segment anything in medical images,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 654, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Medical image segmentation using deep learning: A survey,

    R. Wang, T. Lei, R. Cui, B. Zhang, H. Meng, and A. K. Nandi, “Medical image segmentation using deep learning: A survey,”IET image processing, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1243–1267, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  4. [4]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  5. [5]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson et al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Segment anything model for medical image analysis: an experimental study,

    M. A. Mazurowski, H. Dong, H. Gu, J. Yang, N. Konz, and Y . Zhang, “Segment anything model for medical image analysis: an experimental study,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 89, p. 102918, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Segment anything model for medical image segmentation: Current applications and future directions,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Shen, and R. Jiao, “Segment anything model for medical image segmentation: Current applications and future directions,” Com- puters in Biology and Medicine , p. 108238, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Sam-med3d: Towards general-purpose segmentation models for volumetric medical images,

    H. Wang, S. Guo, J. Ye, Z. Deng, J. Cheng, T. Li, J. Chen, Y . Su, Z. Huang, Y . Shen, B. Fu, S. Zhang, J. He, and Y . Qiao, “Sam-med3d: Towards general-purpose segmentation models for volumetric medical images,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15161 10

    arXiv 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,

    M. Caron, H. Touvron, I. Misra, H. J ´egou, J. Mairal, P. Bojanowski, and A. Joulin, “Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 9650–9660

    2021

  3. [11]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby et al. , “Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors,

    S. Amir, Y . Gandelsman, S. Bagon, and T. Dekel, “Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05814 , vol. 2, no. 3, p. 4, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Localizing objects with self-supervised trans- formers and no labels,

    O. Sim ´eoni, G. Puy, H. V . V o, S. Roburin, S. Gidaris, A. Bursuc, P. P´erez, R. Marlet, and J. Ponce, “Localizing objects with self-supervised trans- formers and no labels,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.14279 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sclip: Rethinking self-attention for dense vision-language inference,

    F. Wang, J. Mei, and A. Yuille, “Sclip: Rethinking self-attention for dense vision-language inference,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2025, pp. 315–332

    2025

  8. [16]

    Probabilistic prompt learning for dense prediction,

    H. Kwon, T. Song, S. Jeong, J. Kim, J. Jang, and K. Sohn, “Probabilistic prompt learning for dense prediction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 6768–6777

    2023

  9. [17]

    Language-driven visual consensus for zero-shot semantic segmenta- tion,

    Z. Zhang, W. Ke, Y . Zhu, X. Liang, J. Liu, Q. Ye, and T. Zhang, “Language-driven visual consensus for zero-shot semantic segmenta- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Generative semantic segmenta- tion,

    J. Chen, J. Lu, X. Zhu, and L. Zhang, “Generative semantic segmenta- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 7111–7120

    2023

  11. [19]

    Diffuse attend and segment: Unsupervised zero-shot segmentation using stable diffusion,

    J. Tian, L. Aggarwal, A. Colaco, Z. Kira, and M. Gonzalez-Franco, “Diffuse attend and segment: Unsupervised zero-shot segmentation using stable diffusion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 3554–3563

    2024

  12. [20]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,

    B. Cheng, I. Misra, A. G. Schwing, A. Kirillov, and R. Girdhar, “Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 1290–1299

    2022

  13. [21]

    Oneformer: One transformer to rule universal image segmentation,

    J. Jain, J. Li, M. T. Chiu, A. Hassani, N. Orlov, and H. Shi, “Oneformer: One transformer to rule universal image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2023, pp. 2989–2998

    2023

  14. [22]

    Sam. md: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the segment anything model,

    S. Roy, T. Wald, G. Koehler, M. R. Rokuss, N. Disch, J. Holzschuh, D. Zimmerer, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “Sam. md: Zero-shot medical image segmentation capabilities of the segment anything model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05396, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The segment anything foundation model achieves favorable brain tumor auto-segmentation accuracy in mri to support radiotherapy treatment planning,

    F. Putz, S. Beirami, M. A. Schmidt, M. S. May, J. Grigo, T. Weiss- mann, P. Schubert, D. H ¨ofler, A. Gomaa, B. T. Hassen et al. , “The segment anything foundation model achieves favorable brain tumor auto-segmentation accuracy in mri to support radiotherapy treatment planning...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Segment anything model (sam) for digital pathology: Assess zero-shot segmenta- tion on whole slide imaging,

    R. Deng, C. Cui, Q. Liu, T. Yao, L. W. Remedios, S. Bao, B. A. Landman, L. E. Wheless, L. A. Coburn, K. T. Wilson et al., “Segment anything model (sam) for digital pathology: Assess zero-shot segmenta- tion on whole slide imaging,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04155 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sam meets robotic surgery: an empirical study on generalization, robustness and adaptation,

    A. Wang, M. Islam, M. Xu, Y . Zhang, and H. Ren, “Sam meets robotic surgery: an empirical study on generalization, robustness and adaptation,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention . Springer, 2023, pp. 234–244

    2023

  18. [26]

    Towards segment anything model (sam) for med- ical image segmentation: a survey,

    Y . Zhang and R. Jiao, “Towards segment anything model (sam) for med- ical image segmentation: a survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03678 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation,

    K. Zhang and D. Liu, “Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13785 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cheap lunch for medical image segmentation by fine-tuning sam on few exemplars,

    W. Feng, L. Zhu, and L. Yu, “Cheap lunch for medical image segmentation by fine-tuning sam on few exemplars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14133, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sam-med2d,

    J. Cheng, J. Ye, Z. Deng, J. Chen, T. Li, H. Wang, Y . Su, Z. Huang, J. Chen, L. Jiang et al., “Sam-med2d,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16184, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hiera: A hierarchi- cal vision transformer without the bells-and-whistles,

    C. Ryali, Y .-T. Hu, D. Bolya, C. Wei, H. Fan, P.-Y . Huang, V . Aggarwal, A. Chowdhury, O. Poursaeed, J. Hoffman et al. , “Hiera: A hierarchi- cal vision transformer without the bells-and-whistles,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 29 441–29 454

    2023

  23. [31]

    Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

    2022

  24. [32]

    Modern information retrieval: A brief overview,

    A. Singhal et al. , “Modern information retrieval: A brief overview,” IEEE Data Eng. Bull. , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 35–43, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    Medical sam 2: Segment medical images as video via segment anything model 2,

    J. Zhu, Y . Qi, and J. Wu, “Medical sam 2: Segment medical images as video via segment anything model 2,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00874, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning,

    T. Dao, “Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international con- ference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18 ...

    2015

  28. [36]

    Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation,

    A. Hatamizadeh, Y . Tang, V . Nath, D. Yang, A. Myronenko, B. Land- man, H. R. Roth, and D. Xu, “Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision , 2022, pp. 574–584

    2022

  29. [37]

    Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images,

    A. Hatamizadeh, V . Nath, Y . Tang, D. Yang, H. R. Roth, and D. Xu, “Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images,” in International MICCAI brainlesion workshop . Springer, 2021, pp. 272–284

    2021

  30. [38]

    Segmentation of knee images: a grand challenge,

    T. Heimann, B. J. Morrison, M. A. Styner, M. Niethammer, and S. Warfield, “Segmentation of knee images: a grand challenge,” in Proc. MICCAI Workshop on Medical Image Analysis for the Clinic , vol. 1. Beijing, China, 2010

    2010

  31. [39]

    Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?

    O. Bernard, A. Lalande, C. Zotti, F. Cervenansky, X. Yang, P.-A. Heng, I. Cetin, K. Lekadir, O. Camara, M. A. G. Ballester et al. , “Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?” IEEE transactions on med...

    2018

  32. [40]

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

    B. Landman, Z. Xu, J. Igelsias, M. Styner, T. Langerak, and A. Klein, “Miccai multi-atlas labeling beyond the cranial vault–workshop and challenge,” in Proc. MICCAI Multi-Atlas Labeling Beyond Cranial Vault—Workshop Challenge, vol. 5, 2015, p. 12

    2015

  33. [41]

    Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma mri collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features,

    S. Bakas, H. Akbari, A. Sotiras, M. Bilello, M. Rozycki, J. S. Kirby, J. B. Freymann, K. Farahani, and C. Davatzikos, “Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma mri collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features,” Scientific data, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    The medical segmentation decathlon,

    M. Antonelli, A. Reinke, S. Bakas, K. Farahani, A. Kopp-Schneider, B. A. Landman, G. Litjens, B. Menze, O. Ronneberger, R. M. Summers et al. , “The medical segmentation decathlon,” Nature communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 4128, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? a new look at signal fidelity measures,

    Z. Wang and A. C. Bovik, “Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? a new look at signal fidelity measures,” IEEE signal processing magazine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 98–117, 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    Image matching by normalized cross- correlation,

    F. Zhao, Q. Huang, and W. Gao, “Image matching by normalized cross- correlation,” in 2006 IEEE international conference on acoustics speech and signal processing proceedings , vol. 2. IEEE, 2006, pp. II–II

    2006

  37. [45]

    E. Deza, M. M. Deza, M. M. Deza, and E. Deza, Encyclopedia of distances. Springer, 2009

    2009

  38. [46]

    Pearson correlation coefficient,

    I. Cohen, Y . Huang, J. Chen, J. Benesty, J. Benesty, J. Chen, Y . Huang, and I. Cohen, “Pearson correlation coefficient,” Noise reduction in speech processing, pp. 1–4, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.