Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Prototype Contrastive Consistency Learning for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation

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

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

Pith's one-line read PCCS claims a prototype contrastive consistency method that beats prior semi-supervised medical segmentation approaches, with reported Dice gains up to 10.85% on a private breast-MRI dataset.

desk verdict PCCS has a plausible pipeline and broad experiments, but Eq. 12's prototype update sums to ~2.0, so the mechanism as written cannot be what ran; needs major revision before it is reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06650 v1 pith:WWEWTTRG submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CV

Shihuan He , Zhihui Lai , Ruxin Wang , Heng Kong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedlearningmedicalimagesegmentationprototypecontrastivesigneddistancemapuncertaintyweightingconsistencystudent-teacherarchitecturebreasttumor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes Prototype Contrastive Consistency Segmentation (PCCS), a semi-supervised method that uses unlabeled medical images to sharpen segmentation boundaries. Instead of contrasting individual pixels, it defines prototypes as the mean feature of pixels at each fixed signed distance from the predicted object boundary, and applies an uncertainty-weighted contrastive loss that pulls same-class prototypes together and pushes different-class prototypes apart. A student-teacher scheme updates prototypes using both student features and accumulated teacher history, while an uncertainty-consistency loss aligns the two branches and lowers prediction uncertainty. The central claim is that this combination segments breast ultrasound, breast MRI, and cardiac MRI more accurately than state-of-the-art semi-supervised methods, with reported Dice gains such as 10.85% over the best prior method on the private breast-MRI dataset under 20% labeled training data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the signed-distance-map prototype, defined as the mean projected feature of all pixels whose signed distance to the predicted boundary equals a fixed value $j$, so each class contributes a sequence of prototypes ordered from boundary inward. These prototypes anchor an uncertainty-weighted prototype contrastive consistency loss whose per-prototype weight is set by the entropy of its predicted class distribution, giving more influence to confident prototypes and less to uncertain ones. The prototype-updating mechanism combines the student prototype, the teacher prototype, and accumulated teacher history in one update so the teacher does not collapse onto the student, and the uncertainty-consistency loss aligns the student and teacher probability maps while minimizing their average predictive entropy.

What would settle it

Take a public segmentation dataset with ground-truth masks and train PCCS with progressively corrupted pseudo-labels, for example by flipping a growing fraction of boundary pixels; if the uncertainty-weighted prototype loss stops outperforming the unweighted version under those corruptions, the claim that uncertainty-weighted boundary prototypes drive the reported gains would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the signed distance from each pixel to the predicted boundary is a more informative coordinate for building contrastive prototypes than the raw pseudo-label class alone, because it exposes the boundary structure that is hardest to segment. Prototypes indexed by distance level make boundary pixels explicit contrastive anchors, and weighting the prototype contrastive loss by the entropy of each prototype's predicted class distribution suppresses the influence of wrong pseudo-labels. With these distance-indexed prototypes, a prototype-updating mechanism that preserves teacher history, and an uncertainty-consistency loss, PCCS reports the best average Dice on BUSI, BML, and ACDC under both 10% and 20% labeled-data settings, including a 10.85% Dice improvement over SLC-Net on BML.

Load-bearing premise

The method's gains depend on the model's pseudo-labels and uncertainty estimates being accurate enough that distance-indexed prototypes represent true semantic classes, especially near object boundaries, even when only 10% of training images are labeled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, semi-supervised medical segmentation can use 10–20% labeled images and still match or exceed the accuracy of methods that need many more labels.
  • Boundary-focused prototypes should help most on lesions with irregular or low-contrast boundaries, which are exactly the cases where earlier methods show the largest errors.
  • The same distance-indexed prototype construction can be applied to any dense prediction task that can produce a signed distance map from its predictions.
  • Uncertainty weighting provides a defense against noisy pseudo-labels, so the method should be less prone to error accumulation during long training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the method's gain depends on the pseudo-label boundary being roughly correct; a natural extension would corrupt boundary pseudo-labels by a controlled amount and measure how quickly the reported advantage shrinks.
  • Because the BML dataset used for the headline 10.85% gain is private, a public re-run under the same protocol would be needed before treating that number as a general benchmark.
  • The uncertainty weighting presumes that prototype entropy is a faithful proxy for pseudo-label correctness; if the model is poorly calibrated, the weighting could suppress high-confidence but wrong boundary prototypes.
  • The signed-distance construction should carry over to 3D segmentation by replacing the 2D distance transform with a surface distance transform, which would make the method directly applicable to volumetric medical images.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PCCS, a semi-supervised medical image segmentation method built on a student–teacher framework with three modules: uncertainty-weighted prototype contrastive learning using prototypes defined by signed distance maps, a 'prototype guide prototype' update that combines student and teacher prototypes with historical features, and an uncertainty-consistency loss that penalizes predictive uncertainty in both branches. The total loss combines supervised cross-entropy and Dice with the three auxiliary terms. Experiments are reported on BUSI, a private breast MRI dataset (BML), and ACDC, with Dice/Jaccard (and for ACDC, 95HD/ASSD) metrics under 10% and 20% labeled-data settings. The authors claim state-of-the-art performance, with the largest reported gains on the private BML dataset (e.g., 10.85% Dice improvement over SLC-Net at 20% labeled data).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper contributes a useful idea: using signed-distance-based boundary prototypes and uncertainty weighting to make prototype contrastive learning more robust in semi-supervised medical image segmentation. The reported gains on the private BML dataset are large and, if reproducible, would be practically valuable. The paper also ships code, which is a strength. However, the evidence is currently weakened by (i) an internally inconsistent prototype update equation that, as written, cannot be the mechanism used in training; (ii) hyperparameters selected on the test set with contradictory values across sections; and (iii) single-run results without error bars, with the largest gains coming from a private dataset. The central claim is plausible but not yet convincingly supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.3, Eq. (12)] The prototype update in Eq. (12) is not a valid convex combination: the coefficients (µ+γ) + (1−µ) + (1−γ) sum to 2.0, and with µ=0.99, γ=0.999 the teacher prototype is multiplied by 1.989 each step. Since no renormalization is stated for the teacher prototypes used in Eqs. (10) and (13), the stored prototypes would grow roughly as 1.989^t and destabilize training. If the implementation instead normalizes or uses a different update, the paper's description of the core 'prototype guide prototype' mechanism is not reproducible. This must be corrected and clarified.
  2. [4.4, Table 5] Hyperparameters are tuned on the test set: Table 5 reports Dice on the BUSI test data for different λpc, λu, and λc, rather than on a validation split, which inflates the reported performance and is a methodological concern. The values are also internally inconsistent with Section 3.1, which states λpc=0.1 and λu=0.01, while the text of Section 4.4 concludes λpc=1, λc=10^-1, and λu between 10^-3 and 10^-2. Additionally, Table 5 is corrupted (e.g., '62.3660.5561.62' and '42.763.1951.11'), making it impossible to verify the claimed optima. A proper validation-based selection protocol and a clean table are needed.
  3. [Tables 2, 3, 6] All quantitative results are reported as single numbers with no error bars, no multiple seeds, and no statistical significance tests. Given that the largest claimed improvements (10.85% Dice on BML at 20% labeled data, Table 3) are on a private dataset that is not released, the reader cannot assess whether these differences are reliable or idiosyncratic to one run. At minimum, the paper should report mean±std over multiple runs and, ideally, confirm the main conclusions on a public dataset beyond BUSI and ACDC.
  4. [4.5, Table 6] The abstract and Section 4.3 state that PCCS 'significantly outperforms' state-of-the-art methods, but Table 6 shows that on the ACDC RV class, U2PL achieves 86.07% Dice versus PCCS's 85.07%, and the average Dice gain over U2PL is only about 0.51 points. The claim is technically about average performance, but the word 'significantly' is not supported by any statistical test. The authors should either temper the claim or provide significance evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [4.3.2] The text referring to BML visualizations says 'Fig. 5 showcases the visualization outcomes ... on the BUSI dataset,' but the BML results are shown in Fig. 6; the figure reference is incorrect.
  2. [Figure 8] The caption contains a typo: 'Singed distance map' should be 'Signed distance map.'
  3. [Tables 2 and 3 captions] The captions use 'unlabled' instead of 'unlabeled.'
  4. [3.4, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) contains LaTeX remnants ('vuut') and the square-root symbols are not rendered; the formula should be rewritten cleanly.
  5. [References] References [23] and [41] appear to be the same paper (Zhang et al., 'Self-aware and cross-sample prototypical learning...') listed twice; also, 'SLC-Net' and 'SCL-Net' are used inconsistently in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical SOTA result validated on held-out test sets, with only a minor background self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance claim (SOTA Dice on BUSI/BML/ACDC), tested on held-out test partitions against nine baselines with the same backbone and training protocols. The pipeline is self-training: Eq. 5 builds distance-indexed prototypes from the model's own pseudo-label-derived signed distance map (Eq. 3), Eq. 9 weights them by the model's own uncertainty (Eq. 10), and the auxiliary loss Eq. 14 pulls student features to teacher prototypes. This self-referential loop is standard for pseudo-label and contrastive semi-supervised methods and does not make the reported test-set numbers equivalent to any fitted parameter by construction. The one overlapping-author citation is [18] (Wang, Lu, Lai, Wen, Kong; Lai and Kong are co-authors here), used as background in the introduction and related work ('[18] utilizes uncertainty maps to guide the construction of contrastive samples'); it is not invoked as a proof or uniqueness theorem, and the reported gains are not derived from it. The suspicious prototype update in Eq. 12 has coefficients summing to 2.0 and would amplify ||p2_c|| roughly as 1.989^t if no normalization is applied; that is an internal-consistency or reproducibility defect, not circularity, because the training objective and the evaluation protocol remain independent of the claim being derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on hyperparameters that are tuned on the test set, and on the domain assumption that pseudo-labels and uncertainty estimates are reliable enough to guide prototype contrastive learning. No new physical or architectural entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_pc = 1.0 (Table 5); text states 0.1 (Section 3.1) and 0.01 (Section 4.4)
    Weight of the prototype contrastive consistency loss; tuned per dataset and labeling ratio.
  • lambda_u = 0.01 (10% setting) and 0.001 (20% setting)
    Coefficient of the uncertainty loss in Eq. 17, selected separately per experiment.
  • lambda_c = 0.1 in the schedule; Table 5 shows optimal around 0.1
    Coefficient of the consistency loss; the schedule depends on iteration number.
  • lambda_aux = 0.3
    Weight of the auxiliary pixel-prototype loss.
  • tau = 0.05
    Temperature in the contrastive losses.
  • mu = 0.99
    EMA coefficient in the prototype update.
  • gamma = 0.999
    Additional coefficient in the prototype update, making the update non-convex as written in Eq. 12.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Signed distance map computed by Eq. 3 using Euclidean distance to boundary is a meaningful index for grouping prototypes.
    The prototype construction in Eq. 5 depends on this; with noisy pseudo-labels, the boundary is inaccurate.
  • domain assumption Model prediction entropy (Eqs. 10 and 16) is a reliable proxy for pseudo-label quality.
    The uncertainty weighting in Eq. 9 and the uncertainty-consistency loss assume high entropy indicates wrong pseudo-labels.
  • ad hoc to paper Teacher-student EMA and prototype update (Eq. 12) converge to stable prototypes without normalization.
    Eq. 12 has coefficients summing to 2.0, which is not a standard EMA; stability is asserted but not proved.
  • standard math Standard Euclidean geometry and indicator functions in Eqs. 3 and 4.
    Background math pulled from standard literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prototype Contrastive Consistency Learning for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WWEWTTRG

@misc{pith2026250206650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prototype Contrastive Consistency Learning for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WWEWTTRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06650}
}
read the original abstract

Medical image segmentation is a crucial task in medical image analysis, but it can be very challenging especially when there are less labeled data but with large unlabeled data. Contrastive learning has proven to be effective for medical image segmentation in semi-supervised learning by constructing contrastive samples from partial pixels. However, although previous contrastive learning methods can mine semantic information from partial pixels within images, they ignore the whole context information of unlabeled images, which is very important to precise segmentation. In order to solve this problem, we propose a novel prototype contrastive learning method called Prototype Contrastive Consistency Segmentation (PCCS) for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. The core idea is to enforce the prototypes of the same semantic class to be closer and push the prototypes in different semantic classes far away from each other. Specifically, we construct a signed distance map and an uncertainty map from unlabeled images. The signed distance map is used to construct prototypes for contrastive learning, and then we estimate the prototype uncertainty from the uncertainty map as trade-off among prototypes. In order to obtain better prototypes, based on the student-teacher architecture, a new mechanism named prototype updating prototype is designed to assist in updating the prototypes for contrastive learning. In addition, we propose an uncertainty-consistency loss to mine more reliable information from unlabeled data. Extensive experiments on medical image segmentation demonstrate that PCCS achieves better segmentation performance than the state-of-the-art methods. The code is available at https://github.com/comphsh/PCCS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of prototype contrastive learning. We aim to enhance the contrastive ability of prototypes to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the PCCS. Arrows of different colors indicate the processing flow of different data. PCCS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of prototype contrastive consistency loss. Large weights are assigned to positive prototypes with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the Prototype Guide Prototype Module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of segmentation results using different methods on the BUSI dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of segmentation results using different methods on the BML dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantitative results on different semi-supervised settings on BUSI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual comparison of segmentation map, signed distance map (denoted SDM), and uncertainty map in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual comparison of segmentation results using different methods on the ACDC dataset. GT represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization results of the pixel features obtained by different methods on ACDC dataset. The dimension of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. AGA: An adaptive group alignment framework for structured medical cross-modal representation learning

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AGA builds token-to-patch and patch-to-token groups via a sparse similarity matrix with adaptive thresholds, and trains a medical image-text model with within-pair contrastive losses.

  2. SHTA: Semantic Hard Token Correction and Center Alignment for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A training-only semantic branch corrects hard-token assignments and aligns class centers, improving semi-supervised medical image segmentation without inference overhead.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3431–3440, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 234–241, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation

    Özgün Çiçek, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Soeren S Lienkamp, Thomas Brox, and Olaf Ronneberger. 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 424–432, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 39:1856–1867, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose estimation

    Ke Sun, Bin Xiao, Dong Liu, and Jingdong Wang. Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5693–5703, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Deep co-training for semi-supervised image segmentation

    Jizong Peng, Guillermo Estrada, Marco Pedersoli, and Christian Desrosiers. Deep co-training for semi-supervised image segmentation. Pattern Recognition, 107:107269, 2020

    2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training

    Yicheng Wu, Minfeng Xu, Zongyuan Ge, Jianfei Cai, and Lei Zhang. Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, pages 297–306, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision

    Xiaokang Chen, Yuhui Yuan, Gang Zeng, and Jingdong Wang. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2613–2622, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Advent: Adversarial entropy minimization for domain adaptation in semantic segmentation

    Tuan-Hung Vu, Himalaya Jain, Maxime Bucher, Matthieu Cord, and Patrick Pérez. Advent: Adversarial entropy minimization for domain adaptation in semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2517–2526, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9729–9738, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1597–1607, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Contrastive learning of global and local features for medical image segmentation with limited annotations

    Krishna Chaitanya, Ertunc Erdil, Neerav Karani, and Ender Konukoglu. Contrastive learning of global and local features for medical image segmentation with limited annotations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12546–12558, 2020. 15 A PREPRINT - F EBRUARY 11, 2025

    2020

  7. [15]

    Exploring cross-image pixel contrast for semantic segmentation

    Wenguan Wang, Tianfei Zhou, Fisher Yu, Jifeng Dai, Ender Konukoglu, and Luc Van Gool. Exploring cross-image pixel contrast for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7303–7313, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Pixel contrastive-consistent semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Yuanyi Zhong, Bodi Yuan, Hong Wu, Zhiqiang Yuan, Jian Peng, and Yu-Xiong Wang. Pixel contrastive-consistent semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7273–7282, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Semi-supervised contrastive learning for label-efficient medical image segmentation

    Xinrong Hu, Dewen Zeng, Xiaowei Xu, and Yiyu Shi. Semi-supervised contrastive learning for label-efficient medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 481–490, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Uncertainty-guided pixel contrastive learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Tao Wang, Jianglin Lu, Zhihui Lai, Jiajun Wen, and Heng Kong. Uncertainty-guided pixel contrastive learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pages 1444–1450, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels

    Yuchao Wang, Haochen Wang, Yujun Shen, Jingjing Fei, Wei Li, Guoqiang Jin, Liwei Wu, Rui Zhao, and Xinyi Le. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4248–4257, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via a tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model with contrastive learning

    Kaiping Wang, Bo Zhan, Chen Zu, Xi Wu, Jiliu Zhou, Luping Zhou, and Yan Wang. Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via a tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model with contrastive learning. Medical Image Analysis, 79:102447, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Rethinking semantic segmentation: A prototype view

    Tianfei Zhou, Wenguan Wang, Ender Konukoglu, and Luc Van Gool. Rethinking semantic segmentation: A prototype view. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2582–2593, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via prototypical contrastive learning

    Zenggui Chen and Zhouhui Lian. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via prototypical contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 6696–6705, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Self-aware and cross-sample prototypical learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Zhenxi Zhang, Ran Ran, Chunna Tian, Heng Zhou, Xin Li, Fan Yang, and Zhicheng Jiao. Self-aware and cross-sample prototypical learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning

    Xinlei Chen, Haoqi Fan, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Region-level contrastive and consistency learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Jianrong Zhang, Tianyi Wu, Chuanghao Ding, Hongwei Zhao, and Guodong Guo. Region-level contrastive and consistency learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13314, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Local contrastive loss with pseudo-label based self-training for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Krishna Chaitanya, Ertunc Erdil, Neerav Karani, and Ender Konukoglu. Local contrastive loss with pseudo-label based self-training for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. Medical Image Analysis, 87:102792, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Deep co-training for semi-supervised image recognition

    Siyuan Qiao, Wei Shen, Zhishuai Zhang, Bo Wang, and Alan Yuille. Deep co-training for semi-supervised image recognition. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 135–152, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results

    Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation

    Lequan Yu, Shujun Wang, Xiaomeng Li, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 605–613, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation

    Xiaomeng Li, Lequan Yu, Hao Chen, Chi-Wing Fu, Lei Xing, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32(2):523–534, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Deep adversarial networks for biomedical image segmentation utilizing unannotated images

    Yizhe Zhang, Lin Yang, Jianxu Chen, Maridel Fredericksen, David P Hughes, and Danny Z Chen. Deep adversarial networks for biomedical image segmentation utilizing unannotated images. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages...

    2017

  24. [32]

    Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02242, 2017

    Samuli Laine and Timo Aila. Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02242, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Efficient semi-supervised gross target volume of nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency

    Xiangde Luo, Wenjun Liao, Jieneng Chen, Tao Song, Yinan Chen, Shichuan Zhang, Nianyong Chen, Guotai Wang, and Shaoting Zhang. Efficient semi-supervised gross target volume of nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency. In International ...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency

    Xiangde Luo, Jieneng Chen, Tao Song, and Guotai Wang. Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 35, pages 8801–8809, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmentation for medical images

    Shuailin Li, Chuyu Zhang, and Xuming He. Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmentation for medical images. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 552–561, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Dataset of breast ultrasound images

    Walid Al-Dhabyani, Mohammed Gomaa, Hussien Khaled, and Aly Fahmy. Dataset of breast ultrasound images. Data in Brief, 28:104863, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 37:2514–2525, 2018

    Olivier Bernard, Alain Lalande, Clement Zotti, Frederick Cervenansky, Xin Yang, Pheng-Ann Heng, Irem Cetin, Karim Lekadir, Oscar Camara, Miguel Angel Gonzalez Ballester, et al. Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is t...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross-consistency training

    Yassine Ouali, Céline Hudelot, and Myriam Tami. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross-consistency training. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12674–12684, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Exploring smoothness and class-separation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Yicheng Wu, Zhonghua Wu, Qianyi Wu, Zongyuan Ge, and Jianfei Cai. Exploring smoothness and class-separation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 34–43. Springer, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation using cross-model pseudo-supervision with shape awareness and local context constraints

    Jinhua Liu, Christian Desrosiers, and Yuanfeng Zhou. Semi-supervised medical image segmentation using cross-model pseudo-supervision with shape awareness and local context constraints. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, p...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Self-aware and cross-sample prototypical learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Zhenxi Zhang, Ran Ran, Chunna Tian, Heng Zhou, Xin Li, Fan Yang, and Zhicheng Jiao. Self-aware and cross-sample prototypical learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2023. 17

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.