Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Conditional diffusion model with spatial attention and latent embedding for medical image segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that cDAL, a conditional diffusion model using discriminator-derived spatial attention and per-layer random latent embeddings, achieves state-of-the-art medical image segmentation in 2 to 4 diffusion steps, about 60 times…

desk verdict Faster diffusion segmentation with a credible speed gain, but an unaddressed training/sampling mismatch in the attention mechanism makes the reported gains conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06997 v2 pith:DZQAPWDB submitted 2025-02-10 eess.IV cs.CV

Behzad Hejrati , Soumyanil Banerjee , Carri Glide-Hurst , Ming Dong This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords medicalimagesegmentationconditionaldiffusionmodelspatialattentionlatentembeddingdiscriminatorguidancefastsamplingMoNuSegHippocampus
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 tries to show that diffusion models can be made practical for medical image segmentation by reducing the number of denoising steps from about 100 to 2-4 without losing accuracy. The proposed cDAL model conditions the label generator on the image, adds a CNN discriminator at every time step, and uses the discriminator's feature maps as a spatial attention map that focuses training on discriminative regions. A random latent embedding is injected into each layer so that the denoising distribution stays multimodal at large step sizes. On MoNuSeg, chest X-ray, and Hippocampus datasets the method reports higher Dice and mIoU scores than prior models, including SegDiff, while sampling roughly 60 times faster and using 95% fewer image-encoder parameters. If this holds, fast and light diffusion-based segmentation becomes practical for clinical settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatial attention map $A_D = \frac{1}{C}\sum_{i=1}^{C} F_i$, the channel-averaged feature map of the discriminator, which is upsampled and multiplied with the ground-truth label to build attention-weighted noisy inputs $x^{att}_t = q(x_0 \odot A_D, t, \epsilon)$. The second mechanism is the random latent embedding $z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)$ injected into every layer of the generator, which lets the denoising model represent a multimodal conditional distribution and therefore use large per-step variances and only $T \le 4$ steps. Together they turn the forward noisy input into a guided signal and the reverse process into a few-step stochastic denoiser.

What would settle it

Run the trained generator with the attention-weighted input $x^{att}_t$ during inference and compare Dice/mIoU against the reported results obtained with plain $x_t$; if the scores differ materially, the reported advantage depends on the mismatch rather than on the attention mechanism itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a conditional diffusion segmentation model can reach state-of-the-art accuracy with very few diffusion steps if each time step is guided by a discriminator and the generator is made stochastic through latent embeddings. During training, the discriminator $D$ is updated on real and generated noisy labels, and its average feature map is used as a spatial attention map $A_D$; multiplying the ground-truth label by $A_D$ and then adding noise gives the input $x^{att}_t$ fed to the diffusion generator $x_\theta$, whose loss is $\|x_0 - x_\theta(x^{att}_t, t, z, I)\|^2$. At sampling, the same generator is run from pure noise for $T=4$ steps on MoNuSeg and $T=2$ on chest X-ray and Hippocampus, with multiple random latent draws averaged to form the segmentation. The paper reports that this beats SegDiff and deterministic U-Net-style baselines on all three datasets, with the largest gains on MoNuSeg (70.96 mIoU, 82.94 Dice versus 69.00 and 81.59 for SegDiff).

Load-bearing premise

The model is trained on attention-weighted noisy labels but sampled on plain noisy labels, and the paper does not analyze whether that training/test mismatch is benign.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Medical image segmentation with diffusion models can be run in about one second per image, making the generative approach usable where 100-step sampling would be too slow.
  • The 95% reduction in image-encoder parameters means the method fits on modest GPUs, easing deployment in hospitals.
  • Because sampling is stochastic, cDAL produces a distribution of plausible label maps whose mean is more accurate than a single deterministic prediction; the same ensemble behavior should inherit the uncertainty estimates of diffusion models.
  • The attention map from the discriminator shows where the model is struggling, so the same architecture could be pointed at other dense prediction tasks such as lesion or organ-at-risk delineation.
  • With $T=2$, cDAL approaches the speed of a single forward U-Net while keeping the ensemble benefits of diffusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not run is to feed $x^{att}_t$ at inference time; if the training-time attention weighting is load-bearing, using plain $x_t$ at test time could understate the model's true ability, or conversely the training/test mismatch could explain part of the gains.
  • The same discriminator-attention plus latent-embedding recipe transfers naturally to other conditional generation tasks beyond segmentation, such as image-to-image translation or sparse-view CT reconstruction, where fast sampling and focus on uncertainty regions matter.
  • The $T=2$ setting suggests a scaling-law-style experiment: measuring Dice as $T$ is varied from 1 to 8 would show how much accuracy actually comes from the diffusion steps versus the stochastic latent embedding alone.
  • Thresholding the mean of multiple stochastic samples blurs the distinction between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty; a follow-up could quantify whether the spread across samples correlates with annotation disagreement across experts.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes cDAL, a conditional diffusion model for medical image segmentation that combines (i) a per-timestep discriminator whose feature maps provide a spatial attention map used to reweight ground-truth labels during training, and (ii) a random latent embedding in the denoising network to allow very few diffusion steps (T=2-4). The method is evaluated on MoNuSeg, chest X-ray, and Hippocampus datasets against U-Net variants and SegDiff, reporting higher Dice/mIoU with roughly 60x faster inference and 95% fewer image-encoder parameters than SegDiff. The paper also includes an ablation study and public code.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful practical point: diffusion-based segmentation need not be slow, and a training-time attention weighting can improve accuracy. The public code, comparison to SegDiff, and experiments on three datasets are strengths. However, the central empirical claim is currently conditional on an unresolved train/test input mismatch: the denoiser is trained on attention-weighted noisy labels but sampled on plain noisy labels. The stress-test concern is therefore warranted and must be addressed before the reported gains can be attributed to the proposed mechanisms.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Algorithms 1 and 2] Algorithm 1 trains the denoising network xθ on xatt_t = q(x0 ⊙ AD, t, ε), where AD is an unnormalized mean of discriminator feature maps, while Algorithm 2 samples with xθ(xt, t, z, I) using plain xt and no AD anywhere in the loop. Because AD is not normalized and can take arbitrary (possibly negative) values, xatt_0 is not a small perturbation of x0, so the training input distribution differs from the inference distribution. The paper never discusses this shift; since the discriminator is removed at inference, the attention map cannot be computed outside training, and the ablation row 'cDAL w/o Attention' is the only training-consistent baseline. The authors should either (a) use xatt_t during sampling, (b) provide evidence that xθ is invariant to the AD reweighting, or (c) reinterpret the attention component as a training regularizer; as written, the reported Dice/mIoU and the claim that spatial attention improves segmentation are not established. In addition, Algorithm 1's discriminator updates use fake samples from xθ(xt, t, z, I) with plain xt, while the generator is trained only on xatt_t, so the discriminator and generator are also trained on different input distributions.
  2. [Section 3.4, Table 2] The MoNuSeg results in Table 2 are reported as single means with no variance or significance test, even though the 1.96% mIoU and 1.35% Dice improvements over SegDiff are headline numbers; without run-to-run or cross-validation variability one cannot tell whether these differences are meaningful. For the CXR and Hippocampus tables, the t-test is only described by an asterisk: the number of folds (3 or 4), whether the test is paired, and the test statistic should be stated. Moreover, Section 3.6 claims significant improvement in precision, recall, and Dice, but Table 3 marks only the Dice columns with asterisks; please clarify which metrics were tested and report the corresponding p-values.
  3. [Section 2.2, Algorithm 1, Table 1] The attention map is not fully specified. Algorithm 1 defines AD = (Σ_{i=1}^C F_i)/C, but it does not say which discriminator layer provides the F_i, and Table 1's 'Attn. scale' values (16/32/64) are never defined in the method; the text later refers to 'the optimal layer' without explaining how it was selected. The lack of normalization of AD is also problematic because F_i from a CNN can be negative and arbitrarily scaled, so xatt_0 = x0 ⊙ AD need not lie in [0,1] and the forward noising process may operate on inputs far from the label distribution. Please specify the layer, the normalization, and the role of the 'Attn. scale' hyperparameter.
  4. [Section 2.3, Fig. 1, Table 1] The random latent embedding z is a core contribution for reducing the number of diffusion steps, but the paper does not describe how z is injected into the layers of xθ; the text and Fig. 1 only state that a 'latent embedding' is added to the time embedding. Algorithm 1 simply samples z and passes it to xθ. This makes the method not reproducible from the paper alone. In addition, the ablation row 'cDAL w/o Latent' in Table 1 does not report the number of diffusion steps T used for the ablated model; since the claim is that z allows T=2-4 instead of many steps, the table should show T for every row so the reader can verify that the drop is due to z and not to a different number of steps.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 2] The loop 'for t ← −T to 1 do' appears to be a typo for 'for t = T down to 1'; also 'timestemps' in the input line should be 'timesteps'.
  2. [Algorithms 1 and 2] The definition of \bar{α}_t uses ∏_{s=0}^t α_s in Algorithm 2 but ∏_{s=1}^t α_s in Algorithm 1; α_0 is not defined, so the indexing should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 3.2] Training hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, discriminator update frequency, and the exact noise schedule) are not reported; the public code helps, but the paper should be self-contained.
  4. [Section 1 and Section 2.2] The contribution statement says 'a separate discriminator for each diffusion time-step', but the method uses one discriminator with a time embedding; please align the wording with the actual architecture.
  5. [Section 3.4] The claim of '95% fewer image-encoder parameters' is not accompanied by a parameter count; please provide the actual numbers for cDAL and SegDiff.
  6. [Section 3.1] The chest X-ray dataset description should cite the specific data source and describe preprocessing and train/test splits more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cDAL's central claims are supported by held-out evaluation against external baselines and by ablations, not by a self-citation or a fit-to-input reduction.

full rationale

cDAL is an empirical construction rather than a derivation from first principles, so the circularity tests apply to whether any claimed prediction is, by construction, an input. The training objective (Algorithm 1) optimizes ||x0 - xθ(xatt_t, t, z, I)||^2, and sampling (Algorithm 2) applies the trained denoiser to noisy inputs; the reported Dice and mIoU numbers are measured on held-out test portions of MoNuSeg, Chest X-ray, and Hippocampus against external baselines such as SegDiff, U-Net variants, and capsule networks. The spatial attention map AD is defined in Section 2.2 from discriminator feature maps, and its contribution is tested by the Table 1 ablation rather than assumed from the SPAGAN citation [20]; that citation is independent prior work with one overlapping author, but the mechanism is not used as a premise equivalent to the conclusion. The latent embedding and per-timestep discriminator are adopted from DDGAN [18], and direct clean-label prediction from [19], both external and not dependent on this paper's results. No parameter fitted to a subset is subsequently relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing conclusion reduces to a self-citation chain. The train/test input mismatch between Algorithm 1's xatt_t and Algorithm 2's xt is a potential correctness or validity concern, but it is not a case of a prediction being equal to its inputs by construction. Consequently, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (accuracy plus speed) rests on standard diffusion equations, the DDGAN-style latent variable for few-step generation, the domain assumption that averaging stochastic samples improves segmentation, and the ad hoc attention map construction. The free parameters are the per-dataset choices of T, attention layer, and aggregation count, which are tuned on validation sets.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of diffusion time steps T = 4 (MoNuSeg), 2 (CXR), 2 (Hippocampus)
    Chosen per dataset by the authors; the claimed speed advantage of cDAL depends on these small values.
  • Attention map layer resolution = 32x32 (MoNuSeg), 16x16 (CXR)
    Selected per dataset based on validation performance (Section 3.3, Table 1).
  • Inference aggregation count = 5
    The paper runs 5 stochastic generations and averages them, following SegDiff; performance is sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math DDPM forward/reverse process and ELBO training objective
    Used as the backbone of the conditional diffusion model in Sections 2.1 and 2.3.
  • domain assumption The denoising distribution can be modeled as multimodal via a random latent variable z, allowing fewer timesteps
    Inherited from Denoising Diffusion GANs [18] and invoked in Section 2.3 to justify T <= 4.
  • domain assumption Averaging multiple stochastic samples yields a better segmentation map; thresholding the mean is appropriate
    Used at inference (Section 3.2 and Algorithm 2) without analysis of the threshold choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The discriminator feature mean is a useful spatial attention map for weighting ground-truth labels
    The core architectural novelty; no derivation is given for why AD = (1/C) Σ Fi and the Hadamard product with x0 should improve training (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conditional diffusion model with spatial attention and latent embedding for medical image segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZQAPWDB

@misc{pith2026250206997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conditional diffusion model with spatial attention and latent embedding for medical image segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZQAPWDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06997}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models have been used extensively for high quality image and video generation tasks. In this paper, we propose a novel conditional diffusion model with spatial attention and latent embedding (cDAL) for medical image segmentation. In cDAL, a convolutional neural network (CNN) based discriminator is used at every time-step of the diffusion process to distinguish between the generated labels and the real ones. A spatial attention map is computed based on the features learned by the discriminator to help cDAL generate more accurate segmentation of discriminative regions in an input image. Additionally, we incorporated a random latent embedding into each layer of our model to significantly reduce the number of training and sampling time-steps, thereby making it much faster than other diffusion models for image segmentation. We applied cDAL on 3 publicly available medical image segmentation datasets (MoNuSeg, Chest X-ray and Hippocampus) and observed significant qualitative and quantitative improvements with higher Dice scores and mIoU over the state-of-the-art algorithms. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/Hejrati/cDAL/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our proposed conditional diffusion model with spatial attention and latent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the Image, ground-truth (GT) and predictions with differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the Image, ground-truth (GT) and predictions with dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of the Image, ground-truth (GT) and predictions with dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization of the Image, ground-truth (GT) and predictions with dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Nandi, A.: Medical image seg- mentation using deep learning: A survey

    Wang, R., Lei, T., Cui, R., Zhang, B., Meng, H. & Nandi, A.: Medical image seg- mentation using deep learning: A survey. IET Image Processing. 16, 1243–1267 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    & Raza, M.: A survey on medical image segmentation.Current Medical Imaging

    Masood, S., Sharif, M., Masood, A., Yasmin, M. & Raza, M.: A survey on medical image segmentation.Current Medical Imaging. 11, 3–14 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    & Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. International Conference On Medical Image Computing And Computer-assisted Intervention. pp. 234–241 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    & Ronneberger, O.: 3D U-Net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation.International Con- ference On Medical Image Computing And Computer-assisted Intervention

    Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S., Brox, T. & Ronneberger, O.: 3D U-Net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation.International Con- ference On Medical Image Computing And Computer-assisted Intervention. pp. 424– 432 (2016) 10 B. Hejrati, S. Banerjee et. al

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    & Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems

    Ho, J., Jain, A. & Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems. 33 pp. 6840–6851 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    & Ganguli, S.: Deep unsuper- vised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics.International Conference On Machine Learning

    Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E., Maheswaranathan, N. & Ganguli, S.: Deep unsuper- vised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics.International Conference On Machine Learning. pp. 2256–2265 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    & Dhariwal, P.: Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Inter- national Conference On Machine Learning

    Nichol, A. & Dhariwal, P.: Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Inter- national Conference On Machine Learning. pp. 8162–8171 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    & Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models.Proceedings Of The IEEE/CVF Con- ference On Computer Vision And Pattern Recognition

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P. & Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models.Proceedings Of The IEEE/CVF Con- ference On Computer Vision And Pattern Recognition. pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    & Nichol, A.: Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis.Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems

    Dhariwal, P. & Nichol, A.: Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis.Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems. 34 pp. 8780–8794 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    & Cattin, P.: Diffusion models for implicit image segmentation ensembles.International Conference On Medical Imaging With Deep Learning

    Wolleb, J., Sandkühler, R., Bieder, F., Valmaggia, P. & Cattin, P.: Diffusion models for implicit image segmentation ensembles.International Conference On Medical Imaging With Deep Learning. pp. 1336–1348 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    & Wolf, L

    Amit, T., Shaharbany, T., Nachmani, E. & Wolf, L. Segdiff: Image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic models.ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2112.00390. (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    & Patel, V.: Ambiguous medical image segmentation using diffusion models.Proceedings Of The IEEE/CVF Con- ference On Computer Vision And Pattern Recognition

    Rahman, A., Valanarasu, J., Hacihaliloglu, I. & Patel, V.: Ambiguous medical image segmentation using diffusion models.Proceedings Of The IEEE/CVF Con- ference On Computer Vision And Pattern Recognition. pp. 11536–11546 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    & Wolf, L.: Annotator Consensus Pre- diction for Medical Image Segmentation with Diffusion Models

    Amit, T., Shichrur, S., Shaharabany, T. & Wolf, L.: Annotator Consensus Pre- diction for Medical Image Segmentation with Diffusion Models. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2306.09004. (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    & Babenko, A.: Label-efficient semantic segmentation with diffusion models

    Baranchuk, D., Rubachev, I., Voynov, A., Khrulkov, V. & Babenko, A.: Label-efficient semantic segmentation with diffusion models. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2112.03126. (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    & Ermon, S.: Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Song, J., Meng, C. & Ermon, S.: Denoising diffusion implicit models. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2010.02502. (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    & Ho, J.: Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models

    Salimans, T. & Ho, J.: Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2202.00512. (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    & Sutskever, I.: Consistency models

    Song, Y., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M. & Sutskever, I.: Consistency models. (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    & Vahdat, A.: Tackling the generative learning trilemma with denoising diffusion gans.ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2112.07804

    Xiao, Z., Kreis, K. & Vahdat, A.: Tackling the generative learning trilemma with denoising diffusion gans.ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2112.07804. (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    & Wolf, L.: Dynamic dual-output diffusion models.Proceedings Of The IEEE/CVF Conference On Computer Vision And Pattern Recognition

    Benny, Y. & Wolf, L.: Dynamic dual-output diffusion models.Proceedings Of The IEEE/CVF Conference On Computer Vision And Pattern Recognition. pp. 11482– 11491 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    & Chinnam, R

    Emami, H., Aliabadi, M., Dong, M. & Chinnam, R. Spa-gan: Spatial attention gan for image-to-image translation.IEEE Transactions On Multimedia. 23 pp. 391–401 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Others: A large an- notated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms

    Simpson, A., Antonelli, M., Bakas, S., Bilello, M., Farahani, K., Van Ginneken, B., Kopp-Schneider, A., Landman, B., Litjens, G., Menze, B. & Others: A large an- notated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:1...

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    & Others: A multi-organ nucleus segmentation challenge

    Kumar, N., Verma, R., Anand, D., Zhou, Y., Onder, O., Tsougenis, E., Chen, H., Heng, P., Li, J., Hu, Z. & Others: A multi-organ nucleus segmentation challenge. IEEE Transactions On Medical Imaging. 39, 1380-1391 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    & Sethi, A.: A dataset and a technique for generalized nuclear segmentation for computational pathology

    Kumar, N., Verma, R., Sharma, S., Bhargava, S., Vahadane, A. & Sethi, A.: A dataset and a technique for generalized nuclear segmentation for computational pathology. IEEE Transactions On Medical Imaging. 36, 1550-1560 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    & Cheng, C

    Su, R., Zhang, D., Liu, J. & Cheng, C. MSU-Net: Multi-scale U-Net for 2D medical image segmentation.Frontiers In Genetics. 12 pp. 639930 (2021) cDAL for Medical Image Segmentation 11

    2021

  17. [25]

    & Change Loy, C

    Wang, X., Yu, K., Wu, S., Gu, J., Liu, Y., Dong, C., Qiao, Y. & Change Loy, C. Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks.Proceedings Of The European Conference On Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops. pp. 0-0 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    & Liang, J.: Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation.Deep Learn Med Image Anal Multimodal Learn Clin Decis Support, 2018, Proceedings 4

    Zhou, Z., Rahman Siddiquee, M., Tajbakhsh, N. & Liang, J.: Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation.Deep Learn Med Image Anal Multimodal Learn Clin Decis Support, 2018, Proceedings 4. pp. 3–11 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    & Patel, V.: Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation

    Valanarasu, J., Oza, P., Hacihaliloglu, I. & Patel, V.: Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation. Medical Image Computing And Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1,...

    2021

  20. [28]

    & Li, S.: Weighted res-unet for high-quality retina vessel segmentation.2018 9th International Conference On Information Technology In Medicine And Education (ITME)

    Xiao, X., Lian, S., Luo, Z. & Li, S.: Weighted res-unet for high-quality retina vessel segmentation.2018 9th International Conference On Information Technology In Medicine And Education (ITME). pp. 327-331 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Nguyen, T., Hua, B. & Le, N. 3d-ucaps: 3d capsules unet for volumetric im- age segmentation. Medical Image Computing And Computer Assisted Interven- tion–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 24. pp. 5...

    2021

  22. [30]

    & Bagci, U.: Capsules for object segmentation

    LaLonde, R. & Bagci, U.: Capsules for object segmentation. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:1804.04241. (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    & Lindseth, F

    Survarachakan, S., Johansen, J., Pedersen, M., Amani, M. & Lindseth, F. Capsule Nets for Complex Medical Image Segmentation Tasks..CVCS. (2020) Supplemental Materials Behzad Hejrati1 ⋆, Soumyanil Banerjee1 ⋆, Carri Glide-Hurst2, and Ming Dong1 ⋆⋆ 1 Department of Computer Scien...

    2020

Pith tools

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