Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 94 references

The Application of Deep Learning for Lymph Node Segmentation: A Systematic Review

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep-learning lymph node segmentation is most accurate with CNN-based methods and ultrasound imaging, according to a 23-study systematic review.

desk verdict A useful structural map of the LN-segmentation literature, but its headline quantitative rankings (CNN best, ultrasound best) rest on confounded pooling and should be reframed before the review is published. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06118 v1 pith:N4U6NWKW submitted 2025-05-09 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Jingguo Qu , Xinyang Han , Man-Lik Chui , Yao Pu , Simon Takadiyi Gunda , Ziman Chen , Jing Qin , Ann Dorothy King
show 3 more authors
Winnie Chiu-Wing Chu Jing Cai Michael Tin-Cheung Ying
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords lymphnodesegmentationdeeplearningsystematicreviewDicesimilaritycoefficientconvolutionalneuralnetworksencoder-decodermedicalimagingmodalitiesultrasound
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

Automatic lymph node segmentation is the step that would make computer-aided cancer detection and staging practical, and this paper asks which deep-learning recipe works best for it. After screening 411 records down to 23 studies, the review argues that convolutional-network methods currently average the highest Dice score (0.836) and that ultrasound images support the best modality-level results (0.857). It also reports that encoder-decoder networks, especially U-Net variants, are the most widely used and that transformer and object-detection-assisted approaches lag in adoption and accuracy. The value of establishing this is that clinicians and researchers get a map of what to build on, and where the open problems—scarce labeled data, shape variability, modality differences—actually sit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantitative object is the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), defined as $2|P \cap G|/(|P|+|G|)$ for predicted pixels $P$ and ground-truth pixels $G$. Because DSC is the only metric reported by all 23 studies, the review uses it as the common yardstick to rank technique families and imaging modalities, and it is the basis of the mean Dice comparisons. The other machinery is the selection funnel: five databases are searched with a fixed query, 411 records are screened by two reviewers, and 23 studies survive inclusion criteria requiring a fully automated deep-learning method, a CT/PET/MRI/US modality, and quantitative segmentation results. The funnel determines which evidence enters the pooled comparisons.

What would settle it

Re-run the representative architectures on shared public lymph-node datasets with fixed training/test splits and identical preprocessing and evaluation software; if the ordering among CNN, encoder-decoder, transformer, and object-detection-assisted methods changes—or if CT matches or beats ultrasound—the paper's pooled mean-Dice rankings are an artifact of comparing incompatible studies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to be the first systematic review dedicated to deep-learning lymph node segmentation. Its central finding is comparative: aggregating the Dice similarity coefficients reported by 23 included studies, CNN-based methods achieve the highest mean score among technique families (0.836), ahead of encoder-decoder methods (0.802), loss-function-focused studies (0.760), transformers (0.736), and object-detection-assisted methods (0.612). By imaging modality, ultrasound leads with a mean of 0.857, followed by MRI (0.792), CT (0.750), and PET/CT (0.716). Within each modality the best reported result is an encoder-decoder variant except for MRI, where a Mask R-CNN-based detection-assisted method wins, and the review attributes the difference to dataset size, augmentation, and skip connections. The authors themselves caution that pooling scores from heterogeneous private datasets may bias the comparisons, and they identify data scarcity, annotation cost, and limited use of newer architectures as the principal barriers, proposing multimodal fusion, transfer learning, and large pre-trained models as the way forward.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings assume that the accuracy scores reported by the 23 studies, which use different private datasets with different sizes, body sites, scanning protocols, and annotation quality, can be averaged together as if they were directly comparable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CNN-based segmentation (mean Dice 0.836) is, on current evidence, the most accurate deep-learning family for lymph node segmentation, slightly ahead of encoder-decoder networks (0.802).
  • Ultrasound imaging appears to offer the most favorable setting for lymph node segmentation (mean Dice 0.857), ahead of MRI (0.792), CT (0.750), and PET/CT (0.716).
  • U-Net and its variants dominate practice, and the best results in CT, PET/CT, and ultrasound all use encoder-decoder designs with skip connections, large datasets, and data augmentation.
  • Transformer and object-detection-assisted methods are currently underrepresented and underperform CNNs, so their potential in lymph node segmentation remains largely untested.
  • Future progress is expected to come from multimodal fusion (for example grayscale plus Doppler ultrasound), transfer learning, and fine-tuning large pre-trained models, not from a single architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The modality ranking may reflect how tightly an image is framed around the node rather than intrinsic image quality; ultrasound images are typically zoomed onto the node, whereas CT and PET frames contain large surrounding anatomy. A fair cross-modality test should crop CT/PET regions to comparable fields of view.
  • Editorial inference: The pooled technique ranking is sensitive to the unbalanced representation of each category; only one transformer study and two detection-assisted studies feed the means, so a few new results could overturn the ordering.
  • Editorial inference: A natural extension is a meta-regression that weights each study by dataset size and patient count, and tests heterogeneity in Dice across sites and annotation protocols; this would show whether the headline comparisons survive statistical pooling.
  • Editorial inference: If large pre-trained segmentation models are fine-tuned on lymph node data, they may reduce the data-scarcity barrier identified here, but their performance on small, irregular nodes in CT/PET would need direct comparison against the reviewed CNN and encoder-decoder baselines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a systematic review of deep learning methods for lymph node (LN) segmentation in medical imaging. Following a PRISMA-style workflow, the authors searched five databases, identified 198 unique records, and included 23 studies. The review categorizes methods into CNN, encoder-decoder, transformer, object-detection-assisted, and loss-function groups, and compares reported performance (mainly Dice) across techniques and across imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI, ultrasound). The authors report that CNN-based methods and ultrasound achieve the highest mean Dice scores (0.836 and 0.857, respectively) and claim this is the first comprehensive systematic review on this topic. The paper also discusses challenges, including data scarcity, annotation cost, and clinical integration, and proposes future research directions.

Significance. A well-conducted systematic review of LN segmentation would be valuable given the clinical importance of automated nodal staging. The strengths of the manuscript are its broad literature coverage, the inter-reviewer agreement assessment (kappa = 0.793), the detailed summary of included studies (Table II), and the structured description of architectures and loss functions. The qualitative synthesis, such as the prevalence of U-Net variants and the diversity of private datasets, is genuinely useful. However, the quantitative claims that CNN methods and ultrasound imaging are currently the most accurate are not supported by the evidence as presented, because the pooled means are unadjusted for dataset difficulty, modality, anatomical site, and evaluation protocol, a concern the authors themselves acknowledge in Section IV.F.3. The value of the review therefore lies primarily in its cataloging and qualitative synthesis rather than in its comparative performance rankings.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A / Figure 17] The claim that CNN-based methods achieve the highest mean Dice (0.836) is confounded by imaging modality. Within the CNN group, two of four studies are ultrasound (0.858 and 0.895), while the encoder-decoder group contains six CT and two PET/CT studies whose modalities have lower overall means (0.750 and 0.716 in Figure 18). A stratified view shows within-ultrasound CNN mean Dice of 0.877 (n=2) versus encoder-decoder mean of 0.850 (n=6), and within-CT CNN Dice of 0.821 (n=1) versus encoder-decoder mean of 0.797 (n=6); these differences are small and not statistically testable with the reported data. The conclusion in Section IV.A that "CNN-based methods are currently the most accurate" and the corresponding abstract statement should therefore be either removed or replaced by a modality-stratified analysis.
  2. [Figure 1 and Section II.B] The PRISMA flow diagram is internally inconsistent. The figure shows 198 unique records, then "Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n=23)," and then "Articles excluded, with reasons (n=175)" beneath the full-text assessment box. If only 23 full-text articles were assessed, they cannot have generated 175 full-text exclusions. The accompanying text states "Among the 198 full-text publications, 175 were removed," which implies that 198 full-text publications were screened, not 23. This discrepancy makes the screening totals unreproducible and needs to be corrected consistently in both the text and the figure.
  3. [Section IV.B / Figure 18] The modality ranking that places ultrasound first (mean Dice 0.857) is based on the same kind of unadjusted pooling across studies as the technique ranking. The studies differ in the proportion of the image occupied by LNs, anatomical sites, imaging protocols, annotation quality, and dataset sizes; the discussion attributes ultrasound's advantage to image characteristics, but the same pattern could arise from dataset selection bias. At a minimum, the authors should show per-study Dice values with dataset size and site annotations, and should refrain from presenting Figure 18 as evidence of a modality ranking unless a within-modality comparison on comparable datasets is possible.
  4. [Sections II and IV.F] The manuscript cites PRISMA 2020 [19] but does not report a risk-of-bias or quality assessment of the included studies, which PRISMA 2020 explicitly requires. This omission is especially relevant because the review pools quantitative results from heterogeneous studies. The authors should either add a risk-of-bias assessment or clearly state in Section IV.F that it was not performed, and temper the "systematic review" claims accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.B] The paragraph describing MA-Net contains the typo "It it highly generalizable"; it should read "It is highly generalizable."
  2. [Table II] The auto-LNDS row contains "Testin: 1,192," which should be "Test_in: 1,192" to match the internal/external dataset notation used elsewhere in the table.
  3. [Figure 16] The legend below Figure 16 lists categories such as "CNN CT Encoder-Decoder PET/CT" without a clear mapping of colors or markers to individual studies; please add a proper legend key or use distinct markers with a caption explaining the mapping.
  4. [Abstract and Section I] The abstract states "this is the first study" without the qualifier "to the best of our knowledge" that appears in the Introduction; the abstract should use the same cautious wording.
  5. [Section IV.A] The sentence claiming that the best-performing methods achieve Dice scores "more than twice as high" as the worst-performing methods is imprecise because the group means 0.836 and 0.612 differ by a factor of 1.37; if the comparison is between individual studies (0.935 versus 0.409), that should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Table I] In the unit row of Table I, the notation "/" is ambiguous; it should be written as "dimensionless" rather than "/" to avoid confusion with division.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the review's quantitative claims are unweighted summaries of Dice scores reported in externally published studies, and the self-related citations are independent data points.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic review, not a derivation or modeling paper. Its quantitative claims (e.g., CNN mean Dice 0.836 and ultrasound mean Dice 0.857 in Figures 17 and 18) are arithmetic summaries of Dice scores reported across 23 published studies, which are external sources rather than outputs of any model fitted by the review. The paper does not define a target quantity in terms of its own conclusion, rename a known result under new coordinates, or smuggle an ansatz in through a citation. The two included Zhang et al. studies [25, 26] share a co-author with the present review (M. T. C. Ying), but they enter only as data points, and their reported Dice values (0.858 and 0.895) were published independently and remain externally falsifiable, so they constitute real evidence rather than circular support. The paper itself acknowledges in Section IV.F.3 that variations in dataset quantity and quality 'may introduce biases in method comparisons'; that is a comparability limitation, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors, and no load-bearing argument reduces by construction to its own inputs. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The review introduces no free parameters, no invented entities, and no fitted constants. Its conclusions rest on the selection, extraction, and aggregation of previously published results, and the key assumptions are about search completeness, cross-study comparability, and screening reliability.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The search string in Section II.A retrieves all relevant studies on deep learning lymph node segmentation.
    The comprehensiveness claim depends on search completeness; the search string requires metric terms such as dice, IoU, and HD in titles or abstracts, which may miss relevant studies that do not report those keywords.
  • domain assumption Dice similarity coefficient is comparable across included studies despite heterogeneous datasets.
    Figures 17 and 18 average Dice scores across private and public datasets with differing modalities, sites, annotation quality, and augmentation; the authors concede in Section IV.F.3 that these variations may bias comparisons.
  • domain assumption Two reviewer screening with third party adjudication ensures reliable study selection.
    Cohen's kappa of 0.793 is cited, but the underlying screening data are in unavailable supplementary material, so this assumption cannot be independently checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Application of Deep Learning for Lymph Node Segmentation: A Systematic Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4U6NWKW

@misc{pith2026250506118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Application of Deep Learning for Lymph Node Segmentation: A Systematic Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4U6NWKW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06118}
}
read the original abstract

Automatic lymph node segmentation is the cornerstone for advances in computer vision tasks for early detection and staging of cancer. Traditional segmentation methods are constrained by manual delineation and variability in operator proficiency, limiting their ability to achieve high accuracy. The introduction of deep learning technologies offers new possibilities for improving the accuracy of lymph node image analysis. This study evaluates the application of deep learning in lymph node segmentation and discusses the methodologies of various deep learning architectures such as convolutional neural networks, encoder-decoder networks, and transformers in analyzing medical imaging data across different modalities. Despite the advancements, it still confronts challenges like the shape diversity of lymph nodes, the scarcity of accurately labeled datasets, and the inadequate development of methods that are robust and generalizable across different imaging modalities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that provides a comprehensive overview of the application of deep learning techniques in lymph node segmentation task. Furthermore, this study also explores potential future research directions, including multimodal fusion techniques, transfer learning, and the use of large-scale pre-trained models to overcome current limitations while enhancing cancer diagnosis and treatment planning strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06118 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA systematic review flowchart. learning techniques in LN segmentation task and highlights their significance in improving the accuracy of LN image analysis. The main contributions of this study are as follows: • We conduct a systematic review of the application of deep learning techniques for LN segmentation among commonly utilized medical imaging modalities. • We analysis and compare the segmentation performan… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Definition of regions. Here, P ∩ G and (I − P) ∩ (I − G) represent the set of pixels correctly predicted as foreground and background, respectively. 2) Class-specific metrics: For the task of binary segmenta￾tion, the term precision (Prec) is used to quantify the fraction of correctly predicted foreground pixels out of all the predicted foreground pixels. This metric is also referred to as the positive predictive va… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of FCN for semantic segmentation [22]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of CFS-FCN [25]. Zhang et al. [26] presented a new generalizable strategy for medical image segmentation, named decompose-and-integrate learning. It divides the segmentation task into sub-problems (decomposition phase) solved by deep learning modules, each wit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of U-Net [6]. The encoder-decoder structure has been widely used in the segmentation of LNs in CT and PET/CT images. Men et al. [31] proposed an end-to-end deep deconvolutional neural network (DDNN) based on the encoder-decoder structure, and aimed at accelera…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of DiSegNet [37] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overview of MA-Net [43]. Zhang et al. [44] introduced a multi-scale U-Net (MUNet) for ultrasound image segmentation, combining FCN, encoder￾decoder architecture with a feature pyramid. The overview structure of MUNet is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Overview of MUNet [44]. In addition to focusing on new methods, some researchers have also explored different ultrasound image preprocessing techniques. To overcome the challenges of speckle noise and echogenic hila that existed in ultrasound LN images, Chen et al. [4…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The dataset for model training contains 2,512 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Overview of CMU-Net [50]. The classification and segmentation model were trained and validated on 120 cases, another 40 cases were used for testing. All images were resized to 512×512 pixels without augmentation. With the prior knowledge from the classification model,…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Overview of proposed attentional U-Net for lymph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Overview of Dice scores of included studies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mean and standard deviation of Dice scores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Mean and standard deviation of Dice scores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    A review on the use of deep learning for medical images segmentation,

    M. Aljabri and M. AlGhamdi, “A review on the use of deep learning for medical images segmentation,” Neurocomputing, vol. 506, pp. 311–335, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Lymphadenopathy and malignancy,

    A. W. Bazemore and D. R. Smucker, “Lymphadenopathy and malignancy,” Am Fam Physician, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 2103–10, 2002

    2002

  3. [2]

    Ultrasound of malignant cervical lymph nodes,

    A. T. Ahuja, M. Ying, S. Y . Ho, G. Antonio, Y . P. Lee, A. D. King, and K. T. Wong, “Ultrasound of malignant cervical lymph nodes,” Cancer Imaging , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 48–56, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18390388

    work page arXiv 2008

  4. [3]

    Sonographic evaluation of cervical lymph nodes,

    A. T. Ahuja and M. Ying, “Sonographic evaluation of cervical lymph nodes,” American Journal of Roentgenology , vol. 184, no. 5, pp. 1691–1699, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/ 10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841691

    work page doi:10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841691 2005

  5. [4]

    Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,

    Y . LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, “Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,” Neural computation, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 541–551, 1989

    1989

  6. [5]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  7. [6]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

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

    2015

  8. [7]

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

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” ICLR, 2021

    2021

Show all 94 references
  1. [8]

    Gan-based synthetic medical image augmentation for increased cnn performance in liver lesion classification,

    M. Frid-Adar, I. Diamant, E. Klang, M. Amitai, J. Goldberger, and H. Greenspan, “Gan-based synthetic medical image augmentation for increased cnn performance in liver lesion classification,” Neurocomputing, vol. 321, pp. 321–331, 2018

    2018

  2. [9]

    Dunet: A deformable network for retinal vessel segmentation,

    Q. Jin, Z. Meng, T. D. Pham, Q. Chen, L. Wei, and R. Su, “Dunet: A deformable network for retinal vessel segmentation,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 178, pp. 149–162, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Practical utility of liver segmentation methods in clinical surgeries and interventions,

    M. Y . Ansari, A. Abdalla, M. Y . Ansari, M. I. Ansari, B. Malluhi, S. Mohanty, S. Mishra, S. S. Singh, J. Abinahed, A. Al-Ansari, S. Balakrishnan, and S. P. Dakua, “Practical utility of liver segmentation methods in clinical surgeries and interventions,” BMC Medical Imaging ,...

    2022 doi

  4. [11]

    Neural network-based fast liver ultrasound image segmentation,

    M. Y . Ansari, I. A. C. Mangalote, D. Masri, and S. P. Dakua, “Neural network-based fast liver ultrasound image segmentation,” in 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , 2023, Conference Proceedings, pp. 1–8

    2023

  5. [12]

    Towards developing a lightweight neural network for liver ct segmentation,

    M. Y . Ansari, S. Mohanty, S. J. Mathew, S. Mishra, S. S. Singh, J. Abinahed, A. Al-Ansari, and S. P. Dakua, “Towards developing a lightweight neural network for liver ct segmentation,” in Medical Imaging and Computer-Aided Diagnosis, R. Su, Y . Zhang, H. Liu, and A. F Frangi,...

    2023

  6. [13]

    Retina u-net: Embarrassingly simple exploitation of segmentation supervision for medical object detection,

    P. F. Jaeger, S. A. A. Kohl, S. Bickelhaupt, F. Isensee, T. A. Kuder, H.-P. Schlemmer, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “Retina u-net: Embarrassingly simple exploitation of segmentation supervision for medical object detection,” in Proceedings of the Machine Learning for Health NeurIPS W...

    2020

  7. [14]

    Competitive performance of a modularized deep neural network compared to commercial algorithms for low-dose ct image reconstruction,

    H. Shan, A. Padole, F. Homayounieh, U. Kruger, R. D. Khera, C. Niti- warangkul, M. K. Kalra, and G. Wang, “Competitive performance of a modularized deep neural network compared to commercial algorithms for low-dose ct image reconstruction,” Nature Machine Intelligence , vol. 1...

    2019

  8. [15]

    Unveiling the future of breast cancer assessment: a critical review on generative adversarial networks in elastography ultrasound,

    M. Y . Ansari, M. Qaraqe, R. Righetti, E. Serpedin, and K. Qaraqe, “Unveiling the future of breast cancer assessment: a critical review on generative adversarial networks in elastography ultrasound,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 13, 2023. PREPRINT 17

    2023

  9. [16]

    Advancements in deep learning for b-mode ultrasound segmentation: A comprehensive review,

    M. Y . Ansari, I. A. C. Mangalote, P. K. Meher, O. Aboumarzouk, A. Al- Ansari, O. Halabi, and S. P. Dakua, “Advancements in deep learning for b-mode ultrasound segmentation: A comprehensive review,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence , vol. 8, n...

    2024

  10. [17]

    Deep learning for medical image segmentation: State-of- the-art advancements and challenges,

    M. E. Rayed, S. M. S. Islam, S. I. Niha, J. R. Jim, M. M. Kabir, and M. F. Mridha, “Deep learning for medical image segmentation: State-of- the-art advancements and challenges,” Informatics in Medicine Unlocked , vol. 47, p. 101504, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  12. [20]

    The prisma 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J. M. Grimshaw, A. Hr ´objartsson, M. M. Lalu, T. Li, E. W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S. McDonald, L. A. McGuinness, ...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  14. [22]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” Commun. ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 84–90, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,

    J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 3431–3440

    2015

  16. [24]

    Automatic lymph node cluster segmentation using holistically-nested neural networks and structured optimization in ct images,

    I. Nogues, L. Lu, X. Wang, H. Roth, G. Bertasius, N. Lay, J. Shi, Y . Tsehay, and R. M. Summers, “Automatic lymph node cluster segmentation using holistically-nested neural networks and structured optimization in ct images,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subs...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Holistically-nested edge detection,

    S. Xie and Z. Tu, “Holistically-nested edge detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 1395–1403

    2015

  18. [26]

    Coarse- to-fine stacked fully convolutional nets for lymph node segmentation in ultrasound images,

    Y . Zhang, M. T. C. Ying, L. Yang, A. T. Ahuja, and D. Z. Chen, “Coarse- to-fine stacked fully convolutional nets for lymph node segmentation in ultrasound images,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) , 2016, pp. 443–448

    2016

  19. [27]

    Decompose-and-integrate learning for multi-class segmentation in medical images,

    Y . Zhang, M. T. C. Ying, and D. Z. Chen, “Decompose-and-integrate learning for multi-class segmentation in medical images,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , D. Shen, P. T....

    2019

  20. [28]

    Automatic 3d cardiovascular mr segmentation with densely-connected volumetric convnets,

    L. Yu, J.-Z. Cheng, Q. Dou, X. Yang, H. Chen, J. Qin, and P.-A. Heng, “Automatic 3d cardiovascular mr segmentation with densely-connected volumetric convnets,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention- MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec Ci...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Springer, 2017, pp. 287–295

    2017

  22. [30]

    Deep contextual networks for neuronal structure segmentation,

    H. Chen, X. Qi, J.-Z. Cheng, and P.-A. Heng, “Deep contextual networks for neuronal structure segmentation,” in Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016, pp. 1167–1173

    2016

  23. [31]

    Npcnet: Jointly segment primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma tumors and metastatic lymph nodes in mr images,

    Y . Li, T. Dan, H. Li, J. Chen, H. Peng, L. Liu, and H. Cai, “Npcnet: Jointly segment primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma tumors and metastatic lymph nodes in mr images,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1639–1650, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . Ieee, 2009, pp. 248–255

    2009

  25. [33]

    Deep deconvolutional neural network for target segmentation of nasopharyngeal cancer in planning computed tomography images,

    K. Men, X. Chen, Y . Zhang, T. Zhang, J. Dai, J. Yi, and Y . Li, “Deep deconvolutional neural network for target segmentation of nasopharyngeal cancer in planning computed tomography images,” Frontiers in oncology, vol. 7, p. 315, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    The tumor target segmentation of nasopharyngeal cancer in ct images based on deep learning methods,

    S. Li, J. Xiao, L. He, X. Peng, and X. Yuan, “The tumor target segmentation of nasopharyngeal cancer in ct images based on deep learning methods,” Technology in cancer research & treatment , vol. 18, p. 1533033819884561, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Segmentation of metastatic cervical lymph nodes from ct images of oral cancers using deep-learning technology,

    Y . Ariji, Y . Kise, M. Fukuda, C. Kuwada, and E. Ariji, “Segmentation of metastatic cervical lymph nodes from ct images of oral cancers using deep-learning technology,” Dentomaxillofac Radiol , vol. 51, no. 4, p. 20210515, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Mediastinal lymph node detection and segmentation using deep learning,

    A. A. Nayan, B. Kijsirikul, and Y . Iwahori, “Mediastinal lymph node detection and segmentation using deep learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 89 289–89 307, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation,

    Z. Zhou, M. M. Rahman Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation,” in Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8th ...

    2018

  31. [39]

    Springer, 2018, pp. 3–11

    2018

  32. [40]

    Disegnet: A deep dilated convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for lymph node segmentation on pet/ct images,

    G. Xu, H. Cao, J. K. Udupa, Y . Tong, and D. A. Torigian, “Disegnet: A deep dilated convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for lymph node segmentation on pet/ct images,” Comput Med Imaging Graph , vol. 88, p. 101851, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,

    V . Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla, “Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2481–2495, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    A u-net convolutional neural network with multiclass dice loss for automated segmentation of tumors and lymph nodes from head and neck cancer pet/ct images,

    S. Ahamed, L. Polson, and A. Rahmim, “A u-net convolutional neural network with multiclass dice loss for automated segmentation of tumors and lymph nodes from head and neck cancer pet/ct images,” in Head and Neck Tumor Segmentation and Outcome Prediction . Springer Nature Swit...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Multi-modal feature attention for cervical lymph node segmentation in ultrasound and doppler images,

    X. Fu, T. Gao, Y . Liu, M. Zhang, C. Guo, J. Wu, and Z. Wang, “Multi-modal feature attention for cervical lymph node segmentation in ultrasound and doppler images,” in Communications in Computer and Information Science, H. Yang, K. Pasupa, A. C. Leung, J. T. Kwok, J. H. Chan, ...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,

    W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed, C.-Y . Fu, and A. C. Berg, “Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14 . Springer, 2016, pp. 21–37

    2016

  38. [46]

    A multiple-channel and atrous convolution network for ultrasound image segmentation,

    L. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y . Song, “A multiple-channel and atrous convolution network for ultrasound image segmentation,” Med Phys , vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 6270–6285, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Munet: A multi-scale u-net framework for medical image segmentation,

    W. Zhang, H. Cheng, and J. Gan, “Munet: A multi-scale u-net framework for medical image segmentation,” in 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–7

    2020

  40. [48]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “Yolov3: An incremental improvement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Segmentation of lymph nodes in ultrasound images using u-net convolutional neural networks and gabor-based anisotropic diffusion,

    H. Chen, Y . Wang, J. Shi, J. Xiong, J. Jiang, W. Chang, M. Chen, and Q. Zhang, “Segmentation of lymph nodes in ultrasound images using u-net convolutional neural networks and gabor-based anisotropic diffusion,” Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering , vol. 41, no. 6, p...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Difficulty-aware bi-network with spatial attention constrained graph for axillary lymph node segmentation,

    Q. Xu, X. Xi, X. Meng, Z. Qin, X. Nie, Y . Wu, D. Zhou, Y . Qu, C. Li, and Y . Yin, “Difficulty-aware bi-network with spatial attention constrained graph for axillary lymph node segmentation,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 65, no. 9, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Encoder- decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmenta- tion,

    L.-C. Chen, Y . Zhu, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff, and H. Adam, “Encoder- decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmenta- tion,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 801–818

    2018

  44. [52]

    Full-resolution residual networks for semantic segmentation in street scenes,

    T. Pohlen, A. Hermans, M. Mathias, and B. Leibe, “Full-resolution residual networks for semantic segmentation in street scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 4151–4160

    2017

  45. [53]

    Efficient application of deep learning-based elective lymph node regions delineation for pelvic malignancies,

    F. Wen, J. Zhou, Z. B. Chen, M. Dou, Y . Yao, X. Wang, F. Xu, and Y . L. Shen, “Efficient application of deep learning-based elective lymph node regions delineation for pelvic malignancies,” MEDICAL PHYSICS, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 7057–7066, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Deep learning-assisted ultrasonic diagnosis of cervical lymph node metastasis of thyroid cancer: a retrospective study of 3059 patients,

    H. N. Zhao, H. Yin, J. Y . Liu, L. L. Song, Y . L. Peng, and B. Y . Ma, “Deep learning-assisted ultrasonic diagnosis of cervical lymph node metastasis of thyroid cancer: a retrospective study of 3059 patients,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 14, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Automated segmentation of lymph nodes on neck ct scans using deep learning,

    M. M. Al Hasan, S. Ghazimoghadam, P. Tunlayadechanont, M. T. Mostafiz, M. Gupta, A. Roy, K. Peters, B. Hochhegger, A. Mancuso, PREPRINT 18 N. Asadizanjani, and R. Forghani, “Automated segmentation of lymph nodes on neck ct scans using deep learning,” J Imaging Inform Med , vol...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  49. [57]

    Automatic segmentation of target structures for total marrow and lymphoid irradiation in bone marrow transplantation,

    J. Shi, Z. Wang, H. Kan, M. Zhao, X. Xue, B. Yan, H. An, J. Shen, J. Bartlett, W. Lu, and J. Duan, “Automatic segmentation of target structures for total marrow and lymphoid irradiation in bone marrow transplantation,” in 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE E...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Utnet: a hybrid transformer archi- tecture for medical image segmentation,

    Y . Gao, M. Zhou, and D. N. Metaxas, “Utnet: a hybrid transformer archi- tecture for medical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Pro- ce...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Medvit: a robust vision transformer for generalized medical image classification,

    O. N. Manzari, H. Ahmadabadi, H. Kashiani, S. B. Shokouhi, and A. Ayatollahi, “Medvit: a robust vision transformer for generalized medical image classification,” Computers in biology and medicine , vol. 157, p. 106791, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Efficientvit: Lightweight multi-scale attention for high-resolution dense prediction,

    H. Cai, J. Li, M. Hu, C. Gan, and S. Han, “Efficientvit: Lightweight multi-scale attention for high-resolution dense prediction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 17 302–17 313

    2023

  53. [61]

    Mobilevit: Light-weight, general-purpose, and mobile-friendly vision transformer,

    S. Mehta and M. Rastegari, “Mobilevit: Light-weight, general-purpose, and mobile-friendly vision transformer,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    Semantic segmentation and detection of mediastinal lymph nodes and anatomical structures in ct data for lung cancer staging,

    D. Bouget, A. Jørgensen, G. Kiss, H. O. Leira, and T. Langø, “Semantic segmentation and detection of mediastinal lymph nodes and anatomical structures in ct data for lung cancer staging,” International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , vol. 14, pp. 977–986, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Deep learning-based fully automated detection and segmentation of lymph nodes on multiparametric-mri for rectal cancer: A multicentre study,

    X. Zhao, P. Xie, M. Wang, W. Li, P. J. Pickhardt, W. Xia, F. Xiong, R. Zhang, Y . Xie, J. Jian, H. Bai, C. Ni, J. Gu, T. Yu, Y . Tang, X. Gao, and X. Meng, “Deep learning-based fully automated detection and segmentation of lymph nodes on multiparametric-mri for rectal cancer: ...

    2020

  56. [64]

    Mask r-cnn,

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Mask r-cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 2961–2969

    2017

  57. [65]

    Real-time flying object detection with yolov8,

    D. Reis, J. Kupec, J. Hong, and A. Daoudi, “Real-time flying object detection with yolov8,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09972 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137–1149, 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers,

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 213–229

    2020

  60. [68]

    Focal loss function based deeplabv3+ for pathological lymph node segmentation on pet/ct,

    G. Xu, H. Cao, Y . Dong, C. Yue, K. Li, and Y . Tong, “Focal loss function based deeplabv3+ for pathological lymph node segmentation on pet/ct,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series . Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 24–28

    2020

  61. [69]

    Boundary-attention loss function in neural network for pathological lymph nodes segmentation based on pet/ct images,

    G. Xu, H. Cao, and G. Jiang, “Boundary-attention loss function in neural network for pathological lymph nodes segmentation based on pet/ct images,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series . Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 90–94

    2020

  62. [70]

    A new 2.5 d representation for lymph node detection in ct,

    H. Roth, L. Le, S. Ari, K. Cherry, J. Hoffman, S. Wang, and R. Summers, “A new 2.5 d representation for lymph node detection in ct,” The Cancer Imaging Archive, 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation,

    H. Noh, S. Hong, and B. Han, “Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 1520–1528

    2015

  64. [72]

    A large-scale ct and pet/ct dataset for lung cancer diagnosis (lung- pet-ct-dx),

    P. Li, S. Wang, T. Li, J. Lu, Y . HuangFu, and D. Wang, “A large-scale ct and pet/ct dataset for lung cancer diagnosis (lung- pet-ct-dx),” The Cancer Imaging Archive , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.7937/TCIA.2020.NNC2-0461

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Atlas of mediastinal lymph stations,

    C. Laboratory, “Atlas of mediastinal lymph stations,” https://www.creatis. insa-lyon.fr/lymph-stations-atlas/data/14a2770a2e.php, 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    Public lung image databases,

    S. Armato, “Public lung image databases,” in Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis in Medical Imaging . CRC Press, 2015, pp. 218–229

    2015

  67. [75]

    Hecktor 2022 - grand challenge,

    T. M. Society, “Hecktor 2022 - grand challenge,” https://hecktor. grand-challenge.org/Data/, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,

    F. Yu and V . Koltun, “Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07122 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,

    C. Szegedy, V . Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna, “Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 2818–2826

    2016

  70. [78]

    Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation,

    L.-C. Chen, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff, and H. Adam, “Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Focusnet: Imbalanced large and small organ segmentation with an end-to-end deep neural network for head and neck ct images,

    Y . Gao, R. Huang, M. Chen, Z. Wang, J. Deng, Y . Chen, Y . Yang, J. Zhang, C. Tao, and H. Li, “Focusnet: Imbalanced large and small organ segmentation with an end-to-end deep neural network for head and neck ct images,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interve...

    2019

  72. [80]

    Airway segmentation and centerline extraction from thoracic ct–comparison of a new method to state of the art commercialized methods,

    P. J. Reynisson, M. Scali, E. Smistad, E. F. Hofstad, H. O. Leira, F. Lindseth, T. A. Nagelhus Hernes, T. Amundsen, H. Sorger, and T. Langø, “Airway segmentation and centerline extraction from thoracic ct–comparison of a new method to state of the art commercialized methods,” ...

    2015

  73. [81]

    A comprehensive survey of continual learning: Theory, method and application,

    L. Wang, X. Zhang, H. Su, and J. Zhu, “A comprehensive survey of continual learning: Theory, method and application,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 5362– 5383, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13 . Springer, ...

    2014

  75. [83]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,

    M. Cordts, M. Omran, S. Ramos, T. Rehfeld, M. Enzweiler, R. Benenson, U. Franke, S. Roth, and B. Schiele, “The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 3213–3223

    2016

  76. [84]

    Sa-med2d-20m dataset: Segment any- thing in 2d medical imaging with 20 million masks,

    J. Ye, J. Cheng, J. Chen, Z. Deng, T. Li, H. Wang, Y . Su, Z. Huang, J. Chen, L. Jiang et al. , “Sa-med2d-20m dataset: Segment any- thing in 2d medical imaging with 20 million masks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11969, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Bidirectional Copy-Paste for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation

    Y . Bai, D. Chen, Q. Li, W. Shen, and Y . Wang, “Bidirectional Copy-Paste for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation.” in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023, pp. 11 514–11 524

    2023

  78. [86]

    C-cam: Causal cam for weakly supervised semantic segmentation on medical image,

    Z. Chen, Z. Tian, J. Zhu, C. Li, and S. Du, “C-cam: Causal cam for weakly supervised semantic segmentation on medical image,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2022, pp. 11 676–11 685

    2022

  79. [87]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning,

    J.-B. Grill, F. Strub, F. Altch ´e, C. Tallec, P. Richemond, E. Buchatskaya, C. Doersch, B. Avila Pires, Z. Guo, M. Gheshlaghi Azar et al., “Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. ...

    2020

  80. [88]

    Unsupervised bidirectional cross-modality adaptation via deeply synergistic image and feature alignment for medical image segmentation,

    C. Chen, Q. Dou, H. Chen, J. Qin, and P. A. Heng, “Unsupervised bidirectional cross-modality adaptation via deeply synergistic image and feature alignment for medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 2494–2505, 2020

    2020

  81. [89]

    Tinyvit: Fast pretraining distillation for small vision transformers,

    K. Wu, J. Zhang, H. Peng, M. Liu, B. Xiao, J. Fu, and L. Yuan, “Tinyvit: Fast pretraining distillation for small vision transformers,” in European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Weighted fusion transformer for dual pet/ct head and neck tumor segmentation,

    M. A. Mahdi, S. Ahamad, S. A. Saad, A. Dafhalla, R. Qureshi, and A. Alqushaibi, “Weighted fusion transformer for dual pet/ct head and neck tumor segmentation,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 110 905–110 919, 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  84. [92]

    Segment anything,

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

    2023

  85. [93]

    Sam-med2d,

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

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Collaborative enhancement of consistency and accuracy in us diagnosis of thyroid nodules using large language models,

    S.-H. Wu, W.-J. Tong, M.-D. Li, H.-T. Hu, X.-Z. Lu, Z.-R. Huang, X.-X. Lin, R.-F. Lu, M.-D. Lu, L.-D. Chen et al., “Collaborative enhancement of consistency and accuracy in us diagnosis of thyroid nodules using large language models,” Radiology, vol. 310, no. 3, p. e232255, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.