BoundarySeg:An Embarrassingly Simple Method To Boost Medical Image Segmentation Performance for Low Data Regimes

Shireen Y. Elhabian; Tushar Kataria

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

BoundarySeg:An Embarrassingly Simple Method To Boost Medical Image Segmentation Performance for Low Data Regimes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 BoundarySeg claims that adding organ-boundary prediction as an auxiliary task with a consistency loss improves 3D medical image segmentation in low-data regimes, matching or beating semi-supervised methods without using unlabeled data.

desk verdict A plausible cheap boundary-loss trick for low-data segmentation, undercut by a misdescribed consistency term and an unexplained forward-pass-only gain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09829 v1 pith:UBYCCW3R submitted 2025-05-14 cs.CV

Tushar Kataria , Shireen Y. Elhabian This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords medicalimagesegmentationmorphologicaloperationsannotation-efficienttrainingfew-shotmulti-tasklearningboundarysemi-supervisedlow-dataregime

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

BoundarySeg is a training strategy for medical image segmentation that adds a second output branch, a boundary-prediction head, to an existing segmentation network and trains the two heads together with a consistency loss. The paper argues that this multi-task setup is enough to close most of the gap to semi-supervised methods that rely on large pools of unlabeled volumes, and that when unlabeled data are scarce or absent it outperforms them outright. The practical payoff would be a drop-in modification, one extra convolution layer plus two loss terms, that improves 3D segmentation without any additional annotation or data collection. On left-atrium MRI the method reports Dice of 0.774 versus 0.587 for the single-task baseline with four labeled volumes, and 0.845 versus 0.771 with eight labeled volumes.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a pair of single-convolution output heads on a shared V-Net encoder, trained with boundary labels produced by morphology: $L_{\mathrm{Boundary}} = L \oplus \Gamma_r(L)$, where $\Gamma_r$ is erosion with kernel radius $r$ and $\oplus$ is pixel-wise XOR. The total loss is $L_{\mathrm{BoundarySeg}} = L_{\mathrm{Seg}} + \lambda L_{\mathrm{Boundary}} + \lambda_{\mathrm{Cons}} L_{\mathrm{Cons}}$, with Dice terms for the organ and boundary heads and an MSE consistency term between the boundary head and the boundary extracted from the predicted organ mask. The boundary head is what carries the argument: it forces shared features to encode edge location, and the consistency term makes the two heads agree, adding supervision at no annotation cost.

What would settle it

Re-train BoundarySeg on the same left-atrium split with the ground-truth boundary labels replaced by random binary masks that have the same foreground proportion; if Dice still rises from 0.587 to near 0.774 at four labeled volumes, the improvement does not come from boundary structure, and the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that organ boundary prediction is sufficiently coupled to full-organ segmentation that a network can be made significantly more accurate in low-data regimes by predicting both at once and enforcing consistency between them. Boundary labels are obtained for free from existing masks by eroding the mask and XORing it with the original, so no extra annotation is required. With this construction the paper reports that BoundarySeg beats every semi-supervised baseline when all methods are limited to four unlabeled volumes, and that it still holds its own against several semi-supervised methods that consume all 76 or 72 unlabeled volumes. The reported gains are 0.774 Dice with four labeled volumes and 0.845 with eight, against 0.587 and 0.771 for the single-task baseline. The paper also proposes a forward-pass-only extension that feeds unlabeled volumes through the network without any loss term, claiming small additional gains.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that unlabeled volumes that are only passed through the network, with no loss and thus no gradient, can still improve the model; in the V-Net used here, which has no normalization layers, such volumes have no route to change the weights, so the forward-pass gains currently lack a mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With only four or eight labeled volumes, a lab can add this boundary head to its existing segmentation model and improve Dice by roughly 0.19 or 0.07 without collecting unlabeled scans.
Because boundary labels are derived from existing masks by erosion and XOR, the method adds no annotation burden and no post-processing.
In privacy-constrained settings where unannotated data cannot be shared, the method offers a fully supervised alternative that the paper reports as comparable to or better than semi-supervised methods.
The consistency loss can be layered onto any segmentation backbone, making the improvement a plug-and-play training modification rather than a new architecture.
If the reported comparisons hold, semi-supervised methods' dependence on large unlabeled pools is not a necessary cost: a purely supervised auxiliary task can reach similar accuracy when unlabeled data are scarce.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: The forward-pass-only extension has no obvious mechanism in a V-Net without normalization layers, since unlabeled volumes contribute to no loss and therefore cannot change weights; the reported +FP gains likely come from an unintended path or from optimization noise, so they should not be taken as evidence for the stated semi-supervised mechanism.
Editorial inference: The boundary-consistency loss should transfer to other organs and modalities, since the paper's own ablation shows gains across all kernel sizes; a natural next test is kidney or pancreas segmentation with four and eight labeled volumes.
Editorial inference: The disagreement between the boundary head and the boundary of the predicted organ mask could be read as a per-voxel uncertainty map, giving clinicians a free quality-control signal that the paper does not explore.
Editorial inference: Because the consistency term compares two predictions derived from the same network, a trivial solution would be for the boundary head to copy the organ head's boundary; ablating the boundary Dice term while keeping the consistency term would separate the two contributions and is not reported.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the core idea—add a boundary branch trained with Dice, using erosion/XOR labels—is a reasonable low-data trick, but as written two claims don't hold up: the forward-pass-only semi-supervised boost and the consistency loss as defined. The single-dataset result is suggestive but not yet reliable.

What's good: it's a genuinely simple extension of the multi-task program already in Peri-Loss, DTC, and SASSnet. The boundary branch gives a real improvement over the single-task baseline (0.587→0.774 Dice at 4 labels), and they ran three seeds plus ablations for kernel size and lambda, which is more than many preprints do. The low-data comparison against semi-supervised baselines with matched labeled counts is useful.

Where it falls apart: First, the consistency loss. Eq. 5 says Dice(f_θ2(X), L_Boundary ⊙ f_θ1(X)); the implementation text says MSE loss was used. Those are different. More importantly, that product is not a consistency between two task predictions—it's a masked Dice on the boundary branch using ground-truth boundary and predicted segmentation. It doesn't do what the abstract claims. Second, the forward-pass-only (FP) results. For a V-Net without normalization layers, unlabeled volumes that contribute no loss term have no gradient path to update weights. The +FP rows (e.g., 0.774→0.790 at 4 labels) cannot be produced by the described mechanism. Either the implementation has some other loss or the gain is noise; three seeds without error bars can't distinguish. Third, the text says they outperform UA-MT, SASSNet, and DTC at 4 labels using 76 unlabeled volumes, but Table 1 shows UA-MT at 0.799 and SASSNet at 0.792 versus BoundarySeg's 0.774. That overstates the table.

Who this is for: people working on low-data medical segmentation might find the idea cheap to try, but the paper needs a code release and corrected descriptions before its numbers can be trusted. It still deserves peer review because the underlying method is testable and the low-data regime matters. A competent referee could push for the fixes. I wouldn't cite it as evidence yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BoundarySeg, a multi-task framework for medical image segmentation in low-data regimes. A V-Net backbone produces shared features that feed two single-convolutional-layer branches: one for full organ segmentation and one for organ boundary segmentation, with boundary labels generated by morphological erosion and XOR. The training loss combines Dice losses for the two tasks with a consistency term intended to align boundary and segmentation predictions, plus an optional extension in which unlabeled volumes are passed through the network during the forward pass only. Experiments on the left atrium MRI dataset with 4 and 8 labeled volumes report large improvements over the single-task lower bound (e.g., Dice 0.587 to 0.774 at 4 labels) and competitive or better performance than the semi-supervised baselines BCP, SASSnet, DTC, SS-Net, and UA-MT, as well as an ablation over morphological kernel size and boundary-loss weight.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the method is practically valuable: it is architecturally simple, model-agnostic, avoids unlabeled-data requirements, and adds little computational overhead, while the reported gains in a low-data regime are substantial. The paper also provides useful comparisons against several established semi-supervised baselines on a standard benchmark and includes hyperparameter ablations. However, as written, the central claim of consistency between the two task predictions is not faithfully represented by the stated loss equation, the forward-pass-only extension has no gradient-based mechanism under the described architecture, and the reported results lack variance information. These issues are load-bearing for the stated contributions, so the manuscript needs substantive revision before the empirical claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Eqs. (5)-(6) and Implementation Details] The consistency loss does not implement the claimed consistency between the two task predictions. Equation (5) computes DiceLoss(f_theta2(X), L_Boundary * f_theta1(X)), where L_Boundary is the ground-truth boundary label, not a boundary extracted from the predicted full-organ segmentation. The text says the model aligns the predicted boundary with the boundary extracted from the full segmentation, but the equation instead multiplies the ground-truth boundary by the predicted segmentation. In addition, the Implementation Details section states that an MSE loss with weight 0.3 was used as the consistency loss in Eq. (6), which contradicts the Dice form in Eq. (5). Because the abstract and introduction emphasize consistency between task predictions as the source of additional supervision, the paper must state the actual loss used, define how the predicted boundary is extracted from the predicted segmentation, and rerun or relabel the reported experiments under that definition.
[Section 2, 'Forward Pass Only for Semi-supervised Training (FP)'] The forward-pass-only mechanism is mechanistically unexplained for the architecture described. The paper states that unlabeled volumes contribute to feature extraction but do not influence gradient backpropagation through the loss terms, and that this allows the model to capture statistical properties of unlabeled volumes. In a V-Net without normalization layers, however, an unlabeled volume whose activations appear in no loss term has no path through which its forward pass can change the network weights: the optimizer update sums gradients only over the labeled samples that contribute to the loss. The reported +FP gains in Table 1 (0.774 to 0.790 at 4 labels; 0.845 to 0.857 at 8 labels) therefore cannot arise from the described procedure. The authors should either remove the FP claim, provide the actual mechanism (e.g., batch-normalization statistics, pseudo-labeling, or an additional consistency term on unlabeled data), or include an ablation such as random-label forward passes to demonstrate whether the gain is a real effect or noise.
[Table 1 and Section 3, Implementation Details] The central empirical claims are stated without any measure of variability. The paper reports that performance metrics are averaged over three independent runs with different random seeds, but no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are given. Several decisive comparisons involve small gaps, such as the 0.016 Dice difference between BoundSeg and BoundSeg + Lcons at 4 labels, and the 0.012 Dice difference between BoundSeg and SS-Net with 4 labels and 4 unlabeled volumes, so it is impossible to determine whether these differences exceed run-to-run noise. The authors should report per-run results or error bars and, where appropriate, a paired significance test over the fixed test set.
[Section 3, Ablation Studies and Table 2] The hyperparameters r and lambda are selected using ablation experiments on the LA dataset itself, and the manuscript does not state whether the ablation is performed on a training/validation split or on the same test set used in Table 1. If the selection is made on the test set, the reported results are optimistically biased. The paper should clarify the experimental protocol and, ideally, select hyperparameters on a validation split before evaluation on the held-out test set.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, Eq. (5)] The notation L_Boundary * f_theta1(X) is ambiguous: f_theta1(X) is not explicitly defined as a sigmoid/softmax probability map versus a hard prediction, and the elementwise product is not described in words.
[Section 3, Table 1 caption] The caption refers to red and blue results, but the printed table does not show colors; the descriptions should identify rows by method name or another visible marker so the table is self-contained.
[References] Reference [1] is cited as the V-Net architecture, but the cited paper describes a road-extraction VNet, not the volumetric V-Net commonly used in medical image segmentation; the authors should cite the original 3D V-Net if that is the backbone actually used.
[Section 2, Eqs. (2)-(4)] The outputs f_theta1(X) and f_theta2(X) are used inside DiceLoss without specifying whether the Dice loss is computed on raw logits, probabilities, or thresholded predictions; this should be stated for reproducibility.
[Section 3, Implementation Details] The sentence 'it's outputs' should read 'its outputs,' and the paper would benefit from a consistent notation for the consistency-loss weight (lambda_cons is defined in Eq. (6) but not restated with its chosen value in the text).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: BoundarySeg's auxiliary-boundary training is evaluated against external baselines and its gains do not reduce to fitted constants or self-citations.

full rationale

The proposed method's auxiliary boundary target L_Boundary = L ⊕ Γ_r(L) (Eq. 3) is a deterministic morphological transform of the existing ground-truth segmentation, so the boundary-branch supervision is a re-expression of the input labels rather than an independent derived quantity; however, this is a standard multi-task regularizer and not a circular prediction, because the reported organ-segmentation accuracy is measured on held-out test volumes against external semi-supervised baselines. The consistency loss (Eq. 5) compares the boundary branch to the ground-truth boundary masked by the organ prediction; although this differs from the prose description of aligning with the boundary of the predicted segmentation, it is an explicit loss term, not a fitted parameter disguised as a finding. Hyperparameters r and λ are tuned on the eight-labeled ablation subset, which is a data-fitting concern but not circular reasoning, since the final comparisons use fixed hyperparameters and unseen test data. The forward-pass-only unlabeled mechanism, as described, has no gradient path in a V-Net without normalization, so the +FP rows of Table 1 are mechanistically unexplained or likely implementation-dependent; this is a correctness and reproducibility issue, not a circular derivation. Self-citations ([10], [22]) appear only as background and do not carry the load-bearing argument. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or renamed empirical pattern was found. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity.

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

The central result depends on four hand-selected hyperparameters and one unsupported auxiliary mechanism. No new entities are postulated. The forward-pass-only assumption is the weakest entry in the ledger.

free parameters (4)

Erosion kernel size r = 5
Chosen by ablation on the left atrium dataset with 8 labeled volumes (Table 2); it sets boundary width and is load-bearing for the boundary labels.
Boundary loss weight lambda = 30
Chosen by ablation on the same dataset over values 1 to 100 (Table 2); high weight is needed because boundary voxels are sparse.
Consistency loss weight lambda_cons = 0.3
Stated in Implementation Details but not ablated; the weight balances the masked boundary-consistency term.
Consistency loss form = MSE instead of Dice in Eq. 5
Implementation details say MSE loss was used for consistency, which contradicts Eq. 5; this design choice is not analyzed.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Boundary labels from erosion and XOR in Eq. 3 are a useful auxiliary supervision signal for organ segmentation.
This is the core design choice; it is only tested on one dataset and one organ.
domain assumption Left atrium dataset with a fixed 80/20 split represents the low-data medical segmentation problem.
All conclusions are drawn from a single dataset with 100 volumes; no multi-organ or multi-modality validation.
domain assumption Baseline semi-supervised methods are configured fairly through their default GitHub settings.
Comparison quality depends on default hyperparameters being reasonable for the low-data setting; no tuning is reported for baselines.
ad hoc to paper Unlabeled volumes passed through the network without loss terms still influence learning.
The forward-pass-only claim has no gradient path in a V-Net without normalization; this is the least grounded assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BoundarySeg:An Embarrassingly Simple Method To Boost Medical Image Segmentation Performance for Low Data Regimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UBYCCW3R

@misc{pith2026250509829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BoundarySeg:An Embarrassingly Simple Method To Boost Medical Image Segmentation Performance for Low Data Regimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UBYCCW3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09829}
}

read the original abstract

Obtaining large-scale medical data, annotated or unannotated, is challenging due to stringent privacy regulations and data protection policies. In addition, annotating medical images requires that domain experts manually delineate anatomical structures, making the process both time-consuming and costly. As a result, semi-supervised methods have gained popularity for reducing annotation costs. However, the performance of semi-supervised methods is heavily dependent on the availability of unannotated data, and their effectiveness declines when such data are scarce or absent. To overcome this limitation, we propose a simple, yet effective and computationally efficient approach for medical image segmentation that leverages only existing annotations. We propose BoundarySeg , a multi-task framework that incorporates organ boundary prediction as an auxiliary task to full organ segmentation, leveraging consistency between the two task predictions to provide additional supervision. This strategy improves segmentation accuracy, especially in low data regimes, allowing our method to achieve performance comparable to or exceeding state-of-the-art semi supervised approaches all without relying on unannotated data or increasing computational demands. Code will be released upon acceptance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09829 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** illustrates the block diagram of our proposed multi-task framework, designed to improve segmentation performance in low-data regimes. The model simultaneously learns two closely related tasks—organ segmentation and boundary segmentation—leveraging the benefits of multi-task deep learning. The natural affinity between these tasks allows the network to share relevant features, enhancing segmentation accuracy. This s… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Ieee Access8, 179424–179436 (2020)

Abdollahi, A., Pradhan, B., Alamri, A.: Vnet: An end-to-end fully convolutional neural network for road extraction from high-resolution remote sensing data. Ieee Access8, 179424–179436 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Bai, Y., Chen, D., Li, Q., Shen, W., Wang, Y.: Bidirectional copy-paste for semi- supervised medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11514–11524 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Biotechnology Reports22, e00321 (2019)

Buetti-Dinh, A., Galli, V., Bellenberg, S., Ilie, O., Herold, M., Christel, S., Boret- ska,M.,Pivkin,I.V.,Wilmes,P.,Sand,W.,etal.:Deepneuralnetworksoutperform human expert’s capacity in characterizing bioleaching bacterial biofilm composi- tion. Biotechnology Reports22, e00321 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

In: International conference on machine learning

Chen, Z., Badrinarayanan, V., Lee, C.Y., Rabinovich, A.: Gradnorm: Gradient nor- malization for adaptive loss balancing in deep multitask networks. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 794–803. PMLR (2018)

2018
[5]

Journal of Medical Imaging6(2), 025503–025503 (2019)

De Man, R., Gang, G.J., Li, X., Wang, G.: Comparison of deep learning and hu- man observer performance for detection and characterization of simulated lesions. Journal of Medical Imaging6(2), 025503–025503 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950 (2024)

Farebrother, J., Orbay, J., Vuong, Q., Taïga, A.A., Chebotar, Y., Xiao, T., Ir- pan, A., Levine, S., Castro, P.S., Faust, A., et al.: Stop regressing: Training value functions via classification for scalable deep rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[7]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 27503–27516 (2021)

Fifty, C., Amid, E., Zhao, Z., Yu, T., Anil, R., Finn, C.: Efficiently identifying task groupings for multi-task learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 27503–27516 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Journal of Medical Imaging10(2), 024007–024007 (2023)

Hooper, S.M., Wu, S., Davies, R.H., Bhuva, A., Schelbert, E.B., Moon, J.C., Kell- man, P., Xue, H., Langlotz, C., Ré, C.: Evaluating semi-supervision methods for medical image segmentation: applications in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Medical Imaging10(2), 024007–024007 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 30 references

[9]

In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning

Jurdi,R.E.,Petitjean,C.,Honeine,P.,Cheplygina,V.,Abdallah,F.:Asurprisingly effective perimeter-based loss for medical image segmentation. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning. pp. 158–167. PMLR (2021)

2021
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11340 (2024)

Kataria, T., Knudsen, B., Elhabian, S.Y.: Staindiffuser: Multitask dual diffusion model for virtual staining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11340 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[11]

In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 23

Li, S., Zhang, C., He, X.: Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmenta- tion for medical images. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 23. pp. 552–561. ...

2020
[12]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Luo, X., Chen, J., Song, T., Wang, G.: Semi-supervised medical image segmen- tation through dual-task consistency. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 35, pp. 8801–8809 (2021)

2021
[13]

Clinical Radiology78(2), 115–122 (2023) 10 T

Milam, M., Koo, C.: The current status and future of fda-approved artificial in- telligence tools in chest radiology in the united states. Clinical Radiology78(2), 115–122 (2023) 10 T. Kataria et al

2023
[14]

In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, Octo- ber 17-21, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 19

Moeskops, P., Wolterink, J.M., Van Der Velden, B.H., Gilhuijs, K.G., Leiner, T., Viergever, M.A., Išgum, I.: Deep learning for multi-task medical image segmenta- tion in multiple modalities. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2016: 19th Inter...

2016
[15]

Sensors21(17), 5855 (2021)

Rehrl, K., Gröchenig, S.: Evaluating localization accuracy of automated driving systems. Sensors21(17), 5855 (2021)

2021
[16]

International journal of computer vision115, 211–252 (2015)

Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al.: Imagenet large scale visual recog- nition challenge. International journal of computer vision115, 211–252 (2015)

2015
[17]

Ad- vances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

Sener, O., Koltun, V.: Multi-task learning as multi-objective optimization. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

2018
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01927 (2022)

Shah, D., Xue, Z.Y., Aamodt, T.M.: Label encoding for regression networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01927 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[19]

Standley, T., Zamir, A., Chen, D., Guibas, L., Malik, J., Savarese, S.: Which tasks should be learned together in multi-task learning? In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 9120–9132. PMLR (2020)

2020
[20]

In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

Stewart, L., Bach, F., Berthet, Q., Vert, J.P.: Regression as classification: Influence of task formulation on neural network features. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. pp. 11563–11582. PMLR (2023)

2023
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06829 (2024)

Troisemaine, C., Lemaire, V.: Constructing variables using classifiers as an aid to regression: An empirical assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06829 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15260 (2024)

Ukey, J., Kataria, T., Elhabian, S.Y.: Weakly ssm: on the viability of weakly supervised segmentations for statistical shape modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15260 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11172 (2023)

Wang, P., Wang, S., Lin, J., Bai, S., Zhou, X., Zhou, J., Wang, X., Zhou, C.: One- peace: Exploring one general representation model toward unlimited modalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11172 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[24]

Wang, Z., Tsvetkov, Y., Firat, O., Cao, Y.: Gradient vaccine: Investigating and improvingmulti-taskoptimizationinmassivelymultilingualmodels.arXivpreprint arXiv:2010.05874 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[25]

In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention

Wu, Y., Wu, Z., Wu, Q., Ge, Z., Cai, J.: Exploring smoothness and class-separation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 34–43. Springer (2022)

2022
[26]

Medical image analysis67, 101832 (2021)

Xiong, Z., Xia, Q., Hu, Z., Huang, N., Bian, C., Zheng, Y., Vesal, S., Ravikumar, N., Maier, A., Yang, X., et al.: A global benchmark of algorithms for segmenting theleftatriumfromlategadolinium-enhancedcardiacmagneticresonanceimaging. Medical image analysis67, 101832 (2021)

2021
[27]

Artificial intelligence in medicine143, 102607 (2023)

Yearley, A.G., Goedmakers, C.M., Panahi, A., Doucette, J., Rana, A., Ran- ganathan, K., Smith, T.R.: Fda-approved machine learning algorithms in neu- roradiology: a systematic review of the current evidence for approval. Artificial intelligence in medicine143, 102607 (2023)

2023
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18961 (2024)

Yu, J., Dai, Y., Liu, X., Huang, J., Shen, Y., Zhang, K., Zhou, R., Adhikarla, E., Ye, W., Liu, Y., et al.: Unleashing the power of multi-task learning: A comprehensive survey spanning traditional, deep, and pretrained foundation model eras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18961 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[29]

In: Medical Image Comput- ingandComputerAssistedIntervention–MICCAI2019:22ndInternationalConfer- BoundarySeg11 ence, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 22

Yu, L., Wang, S., Li, X., Fu, C.W., Heng, P.A.: Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation. In: Medical Image Comput- ingandComputerAssistedIntervention–MICCAI2019:22ndInternationalConfer- BoundarySeg11 ence, Shenzhen, China, Octobe...

2019
[30]

Advances in neural information processing systems33, 5824–5836 (2020)

Yu, T., Kumar, S., Gupta, A., Levine, S., Hausman, K., Finn, C.: Gradient surgery for multi-task learning. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 5824–5836 (2020)

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Ieee Access8, 179424–179436 (2020)

Abdollahi, A., Pradhan, B., Alamri, A.: Vnet: An end-to-end fully convolutional neural network for road extraction from high-resolution remote sensing data. Ieee Access8, 179424–179436 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Bai, Y., Chen, D., Li, Q., Shen, W., Wang, Y.: Bidirectional copy-paste for semi- supervised medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11514–11524 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Biotechnology Reports22, e00321 (2019)

Buetti-Dinh, A., Galli, V., Bellenberg, S., Ilie, O., Herold, M., Christel, S., Boret- ska,M.,Pivkin,I.V.,Wilmes,P.,Sand,W.,etal.:Deepneuralnetworksoutperform human expert’s capacity in characterizing bioleaching bacterial biofilm composi- tion. Biotechnology Reports22, e00321 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

In: International conference on machine learning

Chen, Z., Badrinarayanan, V., Lee, C.Y., Rabinovich, A.: Gradnorm: Gradient nor- malization for adaptive loss balancing in deep multitask networks. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 794–803. PMLR (2018)

2018

[5] [5]

Journal of Medical Imaging6(2), 025503–025503 (2019)

De Man, R., Gang, G.J., Li, X., Wang, G.: Comparison of deep learning and hu- man observer performance for detection and characterization of simulated lesions. Journal of Medical Imaging6(2), 025503–025503 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950 (2024)

Farebrother, J., Orbay, J., Vuong, Q., Taïga, A.A., Chebotar, Y., Xiao, T., Ir- pan, A., Levine, S., Castro, P.S., Faust, A., et al.: Stop regressing: Training value functions via classification for scalable deep rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 27503–27516 (2021)

Fifty, C., Amid, E., Zhao, Z., Yu, T., Anil, R., Finn, C.: Efficiently identifying task groupings for multi-task learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 27503–27516 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Journal of Medical Imaging10(2), 024007–024007 (2023)

Hooper, S.M., Wu, S., Davies, R.H., Bhuva, A., Schelbert, E.B., Moon, J.C., Kell- man, P., Xue, H., Langlotz, C., Ré, C.: Evaluating semi-supervision methods for medical image segmentation: applications in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Medical Imaging10(2), 024007–024007 (2023)

work page 2023