Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

CASC-AI: Consensus-aware Self-corrective Learning for Noise Cell 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 Training a cell-segmentation model with a consensus-aware loss that weights human-AI agreement and separates cell from noise features improves Dice and F1 on noisy lay-annotated glomerular images compared with supervised training and…

desk verdict Plausible noisy-label cell segmentation method, but the FP-correction claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2; worth a revised peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07302 v2 pith:4UUBQ3TV submitted 2025-02-11 cs.CV

Ruining Deng , Yihe Yang , David J. Pisapia , Benjamin Liechty , Junchao Zhu , Juming Xiong , Junlin Guo , Zhengyi Lu
show 10 more authors
Jiacheng Wang Xing Yao Runxuan Yu Rendong Zhang Gaurav Rudravaram Mengmeng Yin Pinaki Sarder Haichun Yang Yuankai Huo Mert R. Sabuncu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cellsegmentationnoisylabelsconsensusmatrixself-correctivelearningcontrastivedigitalpathologywholeslideimageslayannotation
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 proposes a training strategy for cell segmentation when pixel labels are noisy because they were produced by lay annotators rather than expert pathologists. The central idea is to use the AI model's own confidence map to build a Consensus Matrix that separates pixels where model and annotator agree from pixels where they disagree. Agreement regions receive stronger supervision, while disagreement regions are down-weighted or re-weighted according to how similar their features are to high-confidence cell features; a contrastive loss then pushes noise features away from cell features. On a real lay-annotated glomerular dataset and two simulated noisy datasets, the method is reported to achieve higher Dice and F1 than direct supervised training and several loss-correction baselines. If the result stands, it means annotation noise can be turned into a learnable signal instead of an error to be ignored.

What carries the argument

The Consensus Matrix is the central object: a pixel-level partition of the training image into CP, CN, DM, and DH, formed by comparing the model's confidence map $c$ with the lay annotation $y_l$. From the top-$k$ consensus-positive pixels the method distills a cell feature $f_{cell}$; from disagreement pixels, weighted by cosine similarity to $f_{cell}$, it distills a noise feature $f_{noise}$. These prototypes produce similarity maps $\mathrm{sim}_{cell}$ and $\mathrm{sim}_{noise}$, which enter the weighted loss $L_{supervise} = (L_{Dice}+L_{BCE}) \cdot \exp(c \cdot y_l + (1-c)\cdot(1-y_l)) \cdot \exp(\mathrm{sim}_{cell} - \mathrm{sim}_{noise})$. A contrastive term $L_{contrastive} = (L_{KL}+L_{MSE})(\mathrm{norm}(f_{cell}), \mathrm{norm}(f_{noise}))$ separates the prototypes. The mechanism's job is to let the model decide, pixel by pixel, whether a disagreement is a missed cell or an over-annotated region, and to train itself from that decision.

What would settle it

Take a noisy training set, train with the method, and compare the predictions in disagreement regions against pathologist ground truth per pixel. If the IoU or Dice of those disagreement-region predictions is not higher than the original noisy labels, or if reversing the weighting direction (rewarding disagreement rather than consensus) leaves performance unchanged, then the claimed consensus-aware mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper shows that a cell-segmentation model can be trained on noisy lay annotations by treating the intersection of the annotator's label and the model's softmax confidence as reliable ground truth. The method defines four pixel classes: consensus positives (both model and annotator say cell), consensus negatives (both say non-cell), and two disagreement classes (model-positive/human-negative and human-positive/model-negative). The supervised loss is weighted by an exponential term that rewards consensus and by the difference between each pixel's similarity to distilled cell features and distilled noise features; a contrastive term then maximizes separation between those feature prototypes. The reported effect is that false positives in the label are suppressed and false negatives are recovered during training, yielding a mean Dice of 73.00 against 66.90 for supervised training on the real dataset, with similar gains on the two simulated noisy datasets. The paper's conclusion is that consensus-aware self-corrective supervision enhances segmentation reliability in the presence of noisy annotations.

Load-bearing premise

The model's confidence map, produced by a network trained on noisy labels, is accurate enough that high-confidence agreements are truly correct and high-confidence disagreements are truly wrong; if the network is confidently wrong, the weighting will amplify the noise instead of correcting it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lay annotators can replace expert raters for training cell segmentation models, with the model itself correcting false positives and false negatives during training.
  • The consensus-aware loss should improve not only test Dice but also training-set true-positive Dice and F1 while reducing predicted false-positive IoU and increasing false-negative IoU.
  • On the three reported datasets, the gains over generalized cross-entropy, normalized losses, and the previous contrastive baseline indicate that combining pixel-level and feature-level agreement is more effective than loss reweighting alone.
  • Because the method only needs one noisy label map and the model's own prediction, it can be applied to other partially labeled dense prediction tasks without extra supervision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same two-source agreement construction could transfer to other dense prediction tasks with noisy labels, such as gland, nuclei, or lesion segmentation, whenever a second weak label source is available.
  • Editorial inference: disagreement regions that remain low-confidence after training could be routed to an expert for targeted review, turning the method into a selective annotation tool rather than a pure loss reweighting.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to use the consensus matrix as an offline label-correction step by relabeling disagreement pixels according to the learned prototypes, then training on the corrected labels, which would separate the correction mechanism from the loss design.
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 manuscript proposes CASC-AI, a training-time loss-modification method for multi-class cell segmentation with noisy lay annotations. It uses the model's confidence map and the lay label to build a Consensus Matrix (CP, CN, DM, DH), distills cell and noise prototypes from high-agreement and disagreement pixels (Eqs. 1-4), reweights a Dice+BCE loss exponentially by consensus and feature similarity (Eq. 5), and adds a KL/MSE contrastive separation term (Eqs. 6-7). Experiments are conducted on one real lay-annotated glomerular dataset and two simulated FP/FN noisy datasets, with Dice and F1 on a test set and TP/FP/FN metrics on the training set. The authors report improved mean Dice and F1 over supervised training and several loss-correction baselines, and claim the method corrects false positives and false negatives during training.

Significance. If the test-set results are confirmed, CASC-AI would be a useful practical tool for training cell segmentation models from lay annotations without expert re-labeling, and the public release of code and annotations is a concrete contribution. The real-data test-set gains (e.g., mean Dice 73.00 vs. 66.90 for supervised training on the real dataset) are meaningful, and the comparison with multiple baselines is appropriate. However, the paper's explanatory claim that the gains arise from correcting FP and FN noise is not established: the direct training-set evidence for FP correction on the real dataset points in the opposite direction, and no ablation isolates the consensus-aware reweighting from the contrastive term. As presented, the causal mechanism behind the reported improvements remains uncertain.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The text states that CASC-AI 'reduces predictions in FP regions while increasing predictions in FN regions.' For the real lay-annotated dataset, Table 2 reports FP IoU (lower is better) increasing from 2.86 (Supervised) to 3.48 (CASC-AI), while FN IoU (higher is better) increases from 8.20 to 9.89. Thus, the FP-correction mechanism is not observed on the real dataset; in fact, the method yields more overlap with FP regions. Please reconcile this with the claim, state the exact definition of the FP IoU metric, and report whether this difference is statistically significant. This is not a presentation issue because the central 'self-corrective' claim in Section 5 relies on this training-set evidence.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Eq. (7)] No ablation isolates the components of L_consensus-aware. Appendix B reports an ablation on error-free labels, but it changes hyperparameters and backbones rather than testing the proposed components. Since the test-set gains in Table 1 could be due to the contrastive term alone or to the reweighting acting as a generic regularizer, please provide ablations on the noisy datasets: (a) full method, (b) Eq. (5) without Eq. (6), (c) Eq. (5) with omega_sim = 1, (d) Eq. (5) with omega_c = 1, and (e) the supervised baseline. Also report standard deviations and significance tests for Table 2, which currently lacks them.
  3. [Sections 2.1-2.2, Eqs. (1)-(5)] The method uses the model's own confidence map c as the source of 'consensus,' but the calibration of c is not analyzed. The network providing c is trained on noisy labels, so if c is confidently wrong in DH regions, the weighting in Eq. (5) may reinforce systematic errors rather than correct them. Please report how well c identifies correct versus incorrect label regions against the pathologist-corrected labels (e.g., precision and recall of the CP, DH, and DM masks), and state whether any calibration or uncertainty estimate is applied before c is used to define consensus.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Algorithm 1] The simulated FP noise in Algorithm 1 is generated from PAS-positive contours near existing cells, which aligns with the method's assumption in Eq. (3) that noise features are dissimilar to cell features. This makes the simulated FP dataset favorable to the proposed feature-similarity mechanism and limits how much it can validate the method on realistic annotation noise. Please discuss this limitation explicitly and, if possible, evaluate on a second real noisy dataset or on noise injected with a different distribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The FP dataset row uses the baseline name 'RDice' while the real and FN rows use 'NRDice'; please unify the naming and verify that the same method was run in all three cases.
  2. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'Wilcoxon t-test' is not a standard statistical test name; please specify the exact test used (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or rank-sum) and whether it is paired across the WSI-level splits.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The contrastive loss weight is implicitly set to 1 in Eq. (7); please state whether this weight was tuned and report its sensitivity.
  4. [Eq. (2)] Selecting the top k/2 pixel indices assumes k is even, and the value of k is not justified or swept; please clarify the choice and its effect on the distilled features.
  5. [Figure 2] The figure uses quantities such as Sim_cell and Sim_noise that are not defined in the caption; adding a legend that maps the notation to Eqs. (1)-(4) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method's consensus weighting is a self-referential training heuristic, but the central empirical claims are evaluated on held-out test sets against pathologist-verified ground truth, so they are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper proposes a training objective, not a derivation of a mathematical result. Equations 1-7 define how the model's own confidence map c and feature map fD are combined with lay annotations yl to form consensus regions and loss weights; these are self-referential by design (the model helps define its own supervision), but self-referential training is not equivalent to circular evidence. The central claim of improved segmentation reliability is supported by Table 1, which reports Dice and F1 on held-out test sets with pathologist-verified ground truth and compares against independent baselines. That evaluation is external to the training objective and therefore not circular. The training-set diagnostic in Table 2 is an additional analysis, not a prediction; the fact that FP IoU worsens on the real dataset (2.86 to 3.48) while the text claims FP reduction is an internal empirical inconsistency, but inconsistency is a correctness concern rather than a circularity of the derivation chain. Self-citations to Deng et al. 2023 and 2024b supply the lay-annotation dataset and backbone, but the backbone choice is independently tested in Table 5 against CellViT and CellSAM, and the dataset is a data-provenance citation. No uniqueness theorem or externally imported ansatz is used to forbid alternatives. The limitation paragraph explicitly acknowledges the design is restricted to loss correction, which further indicates the authors do not claim a forced or unique solution. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The central claim rests on a small set of domain assumptions about noise type, confidence reliability, and feature similarity. There are at least two unstated or unreported free parameters (k and the contrastive weighting) plus several noise-generation parameters for the simulated datasets. No new physical or model entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • k (top-k pixel count) = not reported
    Eqs. 1 and 2 select the top k pixels (and k/2 per disagreement mode) to distill fcell and fnoise. No value or sensitivity analysis is given, yet this choice directly controls which features are treated as reliable.
  • contrastive loss weight (implicit lambda=1) = 1 (implicit)
    Eq. 7 adds L_supervise and L_contrastive with no balancing coefficient; this fixed weighting is a design choice not ablated.
  • FP noise generation threshold T and noise limit = not reported
    Algorithm 1 uses an intensity threshold T and a noise limit that determine how many false positive contours are injected; values not given. FN missing_ratio likewise unreported (Algorithm 2). Without these, the simulated datasets are not exactly reproducible.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Annotation noise is dominated by instance-wise location errors (FP and FN), not contour or boundary errors
    Section 2 states the study mainly focuses on instance-wise location errors introduced by molecular-empowered lay annotation; the method has no mechanism for boundary noise.
  • domain assumption The model confidence map c is a reliable indicator of true cell presence even under noisy labels
    Eqs. 1-5 build the Consensus Matrix and loss weights from c without calibration or uncertainty modeling; if c is confidently wrong, supervision is misallocated.
  • ad hoc to paper Pixel features in disagreement regions that are similar to consensus cell features are trustworthy, and dissimilar features are noise
    Eq. 3 constructs noise features by weighting with 1 - normalized similarity to fcell, and Eq. 6 then pushes fcell and fnoise apart; this enforces rather than tests the assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CASC-AI: Consensus-aware Self-corrective Learning for Noise Cell Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4UUBQ3TV

@misc{pith2026250207302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CASC-AI: Consensus-aware Self-corrective Learning for Noise Cell Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4UUBQ3TV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07302}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-class cell segmentation in high-resolution gigapixel whole slide images (WSIs) is crucial for various clinical applications. However, training such models typically requires labor-intensive, pixel-wise annotations by domain experts. Recent efforts have democratized this process by involving lay annotators without medical expertise. However, conventional non-corrective approaches struggle to handle annotation noise adaptively because they lack mechanisms to mitigate false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN) at both the image-feature and pixel levels. In this paper, we propose a consensus-aware self-corrective AI agent that leverages the Consensus Matrix to guide its learning process. The Consensus Matrix defines regions where both the AI and annotators agree on cell and non-cell annotations, which are prioritized with stronger supervision. Conversely, areas of disagreement are adaptively weighted based on their feature similarity to high-confidence consensus regions, with more similar regions receiving greater attention. Additionally, contrastive learning is employed to separate features of noisy regions from those of reliable consensus regions by maximizing their dissimilarity. This paradigm enables the model to iteratively refine noisy labels, enhancing its robustness. Validated on one real-world lay-annotated cell dataset and two reasoning-guided simulated noisy datasets, our method demonstrates improved segmentation performance, effectively correcting FP and FN errors and showcasing its potential for training robust models on noisy datasets. The official implementation and cell annotations are publicly available at https://github.com/ddrrnn123/CASC-AI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Consensus-aware self-corrective learning. We propose a Consensus-Aware Self-Corrective Learning for robust cell segmentation with noisy training data. The model leverages the CM to guide learning, prioritizing CP and CN regions with stronger supervision, while adaptively weighting DM and DH regions based on their similarity to reliable CP regions by contrastive learning. labels, enhancing its robustness. Validated o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the Consensus-Aware Supervision Framework. The archi￾tecture integrates AI-derived confidence maps (c) and lay annotations (yl) to iden￾tify consensus-positive (CP), consensus-negative (CN), and disagreement regions (DM, DH). This framework emphasizes robust training by focusing on regions of consensus and leveraging disagreement as informative cues for improved cell segmentation accuracy. 2.1. Consensus… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the Noisy Dataset. The figure depicts a real lay annotation dataset and two reasonable noise generation pipelines used to create FP and FN datasets with plausible noise. These processes are applied to evaluate the proposed method under challenging scenarios. Real Lay Annotation Dataset: Following the annotation process described in (Deng et al., 2023), two sets of annotations were obtained (1) direct… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Results. The figure presents qualitative results on real dataset obtained using the supervised method and the proposed CASC-AI method. The results demonstrate that the proposed self-corrective learning approach enhances segmentation performance on noisy lab…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Investigating quantitative histological characteristics in renal pathology using histolens

    Samuel P Border, John E Tomaszewski, Teruhiko Yoshida, Jeffrey B Kopp, Jeffrey B Hodgin, William L Clapp, Avi Z Rosenberg, Jill P Buyon, and Pinaki Sarder. Investigating quantitative histological characteristics in renal pathology using histolens. Scientific reports, 14 0 (1): 0 17528, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Data-analysis strategies for image-based cell profiling

    Juan C Caicedo, Sam Cooper, Florian Heigwer, Scott Warchal, Peng Qiu, Csaba Molnar, Aliaksei S Vasilevich, Joseph D Barry, Harmanjit Singh Bansal, Oren Kraus, et al. Data-analysis strategies for image-based cell profiling. Nature methods, 14 0 (9): 0 849--863, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Cell image segmentation for diagnostic pathology

    Dorin Comaniciu and Peter Meer. Cell image segmentation for diagnostic pathology. Advanced algorithmic approaches to medical image segmentation: State-of-the-art applications in cardiology, neurology, mammography and pathology, pages 541--558, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Singr: Brain tumor segmentation via signed normalized geodesic transform regression

    Trung Dang, Huy Hoang Nguyen, and Aleksei Tiulpin. Singr: Brain tumor segmentation via signed normalized geodesic transform regression. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 593--603. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Democratizing pathological image segmentation with lay annotators via molecular-empowered learning

    Ruining Deng, Yanwei Li, Peize Li, Jiacheng Wang, Lucas W Remedios, Saydolimkhon Agzamkhodjaev, Zuhayr Asad, Quan Liu, Can Cui, Yaohong Wang, et al. Democratizing pathological image segmentation with lay annotators via molecular-empowered learning. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 497--507. S...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Hats: Hierarchical adaptive taxonomy segmentation for panoramic pathology image analysis

    Ruining Deng, Quan Liu, Can Cui, Tianyuan Yao, Juming Xiong, Shunxing Bao, Hao Li, Mengmeng Yin, Yu Wang, Shilin Zhao, et al. Hats: Hierarchical adaptive taxonomy segmentation for panoramic pathology image analysis. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 155--166. Springer, 2024 a

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Prpseg: Universal proposition learning for panoramic renal pathology segmentation

    Ruining Deng, Quan Liu, Can Cui, Tianyuan Yao, Jialin Yue, Juming Xiong, Lining Yu, Yifei Wu, Mengmeng Yin, Yu Wang, et al. Prpseg: Universal proposition learning for panoramic renal pathology segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11736--11746, 2024 b

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Kpis 2024 challenge: Advancing glomerular segmentation from patch-to slide-level

    Ruining Deng, Tianyuan Yao, Yucheng Tang, Junlin Guo, Siqi Lu, Juming Xiong, Lining Yu, Quan Huu Cap, Pengzhou Cai, Libin Lan, et al. Kpis 2024 challenge: Advancing glomerular segmentation from patch-to slide-level. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07288, 2025

    arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Deep learning in digital pathology image analysis: a survey

    Shujian Deng, Xin Zhang, Wen Yan, Eric I-Chao Chang, Yubo Fan, Maode Lai, and Yan Xu. Deep learning in digital pathology image analysis: a survey. Frontiers of medicine, 14: 0 470--487, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Instanseg: an embedding-based instance segmentation algorithm optimized for accurate, efficient and portable cell segmentation

    Thibaut Goldsborough, Ben Philps, Alan O'Callaghan, Fiona Inglis, Leo Leplat, Andrew Filby, Hakan Bilen, and Peter Bankhead. Instanseg: an embedding-based instance segmentation algorithm optimized for accurate, efficient and portable cell segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:240...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sac-net: Learning with weak and noisy labels in histopathology image segmentation

    Ruoyu Guo, Kunzi Xie, Maurice Pagnucco, and Yang Song. Sac-net: Learning with weak and noisy labels in histopathology image segmentation. Medical Image Analysis, 86: 0 102790, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels

    Bo Han, Quanming Yao, Xingrui Yu, Gang Niu, Miao Xu, Weihua Hu, Ivor Tsang, and Masashi Sugiyama. Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    o rst, Moritz Rempe, Lukas Heine, Constantin Seibold, Julius Keyl, Giulia Baldini, Selma Ugurel, Jens Siveke, Barbara Gr \

    Fabian H \"o rst, Moritz Rempe, Lukas Heine, Constantin Seibold, Julius Keyl, Giulia Baldini, Selma Ugurel, Jens Siveke, Barbara Gr \"u nwald, Jan Egger, et al. Cellvit: Vision transformers for precise cell segmentation and classification. Medical Image Analysis, 94: 0 103143, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Gloria: A multimodal global-local representation learning framework for label-efficient medical image recognition

    Shih-Cheng Huang, Liyue Shen, Matthew P Lungren, and Serena Yeung. Gloria: A multimodal global-local representation learning framework for label-efficient medical image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3942--3951, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Interactions between podocytes, mesangial cells, and glomerular endothelial cells in glomerular diseases

    John D Imig, Xueying Zhao, Ahmed A Elmarakby, and Tengis Pavlov. Interactions between podocytes, mesangial cells, and glomerular endothelial cells in glomerular diseases. Frontiers in Physiology, page 488, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A foundation model for cell segmentation

    Uriah Israel, Markus Marks, Rohit Dilip, Qilin Li, Changhua Yu, Emily Laubscher, Shenyi Li, Morgan Schwartz, Elora Pradhan, Ada Ates, et al. A foundation model for cell segmentation. bioRxiv, pages 2023--11, 2024

    2023

  9. [17]

    Mast cell quantification in normal peritoneum and during peritoneal dialysis treatment

    Jos \'e A Jim \'e nez-Heffernan, M Auxiliadora Bajo, Cristian Perna, Gloria del Peso, Juan R Larrubia, Carlos Gamallo, Jos \'e A S \'a nchez-Tomero, Manuel L \'o pez-Cabrera, and Rafael Selgas. Mast cell quantification in normal peritoneum and during peritoneal dialysis treatm...

    2006

  10. [18]

    Deep learning with noisy labels: Exploring techniques and remedies in medical image analysis

    Davood Karimi, Haoran Dou, Simon K Warfield, and Ali Gholipour. Deep learning with noisy labels: Exploring techniques and remedies in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis, 65: 0 101759, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    A structured tumor-immune microenvironment in triple negative breast cancer revealed by multiplexed ion beam imaging

    Leeat Keren, Marc Bosse, Diana Marquez, Roshan Angoshtari, Samir Jain, Sushama Varma, Soo-Ryum Yang, Allison Kurian, David Van Valen, Robert West, et al. A structured tumor-immune microenvironment in triple negative breast cancer revealed by multiplexed ion beam imaging. Cell,...

    2018

  12. [20]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis

    Geert Litjens, Thijs Kooi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio, Francesco Ciompi, Mohsen Ghafoorian, Jeroen Awm Van Der Laak, Bram Van Ginneken, and Clara I S \'a nchez. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis, 42: 0 60--88, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Uncertainty-aware pseudo-label and consistency for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Liyun Lu, Mengxiao Yin, Liyao Fu, and Feng Yang. Uncertainty-aware pseudo-label and consistency for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 79: 0 104203, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels

    Xingjun Ma, Hanxun Huang, Yisen Wang, Simone Romano, Sarah Erfani, and James Bailey. Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels. In International conference on machine learning, pages 6543--6553. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Htlv-1 proviral load in peripheral blood mononuclear cells quantified in 100 ham/tsp patients: a marker of disease progression

    St \'e phane Olindo, Agn \`e s L \'e zin, Philippe Cabre, Harold Merle, Martine Saint-Vil, Mireille Edimonana Kaptue, A \" ssatou Signate, Raymond C \'e saire, and Didier Smadja. Htlv-1 proviral load in peripheral blood mononuclear cells quantified in 100 ham/tsp patients: a m...

    2005

  16. [24]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth \'e e Darcet, Th \'e o Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Image-based cell phenotyping with deep learning

    Aditya Pratapa, Michael Doron, and Juan C Caicedo. Image-based cell phenotyping with deep learning. Current opinion in chemical biology, 65: 0 9--17, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    An analysis of the impact of annotation errors on the accuracy of deep learning for cell segmentation

    S erban V a dineanu, Dani \"e l Maria Pelt, Oleh Dzyubachyk, and Kees Joost Batenburg. An analysis of the impact of annotation errors on the accuracy of deep learning for cell segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, pages 1251--1267. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    A noise-robust framework for automatic segmentation of covid-19 pneumonia lesions from ct images

    Guotai Wang, Xinglong Liu, Chaoping Li, Zhiyong Xu, Jiugen Ruan, Haifeng Zhu, Tao Meng, Kang Li, Ning Huang, and Shaoting Zhang. A noise-robust framework for automatic segmentation of covid-19 pneumonia lesions from ct images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 39 0 (8): 0 ...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Quantification of dengue virus specific t cell responses and correlation with viral load and clinical disease severity in acute dengue infection

    Dulharie T Wijeratne, Samitha Fernando, Laksiri Gomes, Chandima Jeewandara, Anushka Ginneliya, Supun Samarasekara, Ananda Wijewickrama, Clare S Hardman, Graham S Ogg, and Gathsaurie Neelika Malavige. Quantification of dengue virus specific t cell responses and correlation with...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Robust nucleus/cell detection and segmentation in digital pathology and microscopy images: a comprehensive review

    Fuyong Xing and Lin Yang. Robust nucleus/cell detection and segmentation in digital pathology and microscopy images: a comprehensive review. IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering, 9: 0 234--263, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Disentangling human error from ground truth in segmentation of medical images

    Le Zhang, Ryutaro Tanno, Mou-Cheng Xu, Chen Jin, Joseph Jacob, Olga Cicarrelli, Frederik Barkhof, and Daniel Alexander. Disentangling human error from ground truth in segmentation of medical images. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 15750--15762, 2020 a

    2020

  23. [31]

    Robust medical image segmentation from non-expert annotations with tri-network

    Tianwei Zhang, Lequan Yu, Na Hu, Su Lv, and Shi Gu. Robust medical image segmentation from non-expert annotations with tri-network. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4--8, 2020, Procee...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels

    Zhilu Zhang and Mert Sabuncu. Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Deep-learning--driven quantification of interstitial fibrosis in digitized kidney biopsies

    Yi Zheng, Clarissa A Cassol, Saemi Jung, Divya Veerapaneni, Vipul C Chitalia, Kevin YM Ren, Shubha S Bellur, Peter Boor, Laura M Barisoni, Sushrut S Waikar, et al. Deep-learning--driven quantification of interstitial fibrosis in digitized kidney biopsies. The American journal ...

    2021

Pith tools

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