Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

PLUS: Plug-and-Play Enhanced Liver Lesion Diagnosis Model on Non-Contrast CT Scans

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PLUS wraps any pre-trained 3D segmentation model and raises liver-lesion F1 by 5.66% on non-contrast CT.

desk verdict Useful plug-and-play for NCCT liver lesion screening, but the loss equations are undefined when no lesions are detected and the statistics need a second pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03872 v1 pith:JHLNHPBI submitted 2025-07-05 eess.IV cs.CV

Jiacheng Hao , Xiaoming Zhang , Wei Liu , Xiaoli Yin , Yuan Gao , Chunli Li , Ling Zhang , Le Lu
show 3 more authors
Yu Shi Xu Han Ke Yan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords focalliverlesionsnon-contrastCTplug-and-playhierarchicaldualattentiongraph-basedpriorreasoninglesionclassificationpatient-leveldiagnosis3Dsegmentation
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

PLUS is a plug-and-play module that upgrades any pre-trained 3D liver lesion segmentation model to diagnose focal liver lesions directly on non-contrast CT scans. It takes the segmentation model's liver mask, lesion masks, and preliminary class predictions as inputs, then re-reads the original image through two encoders and fuses the two scales before making final lesion and patient-level decisions. On a dataset of 8,651 patients and 28,853 lesions, adding PLUS to the PLAN baseline raises lesion-level F1 from 59.45% to 65.11%, malignant patient-level F1 from 83.86% to 90.12%, and benign patient-level F1 from 69.07% to 73.10%. The same module also improves nnUNet and Mask2Former, suggesting the gains come from the plug-in reasoning rather than a particular backbone. If correct, this offers a route to opportunistic liver cancer screening on the most widely available CT protocol.

What carries the argument

The framework rests on three components. Hierarchical dual attention (HDA) performs bidirectional cross-attention between global liver features and local lesion features at multiple pooled scales, mimicking a radiologist zooming in and out and using liver context such as cirrhosis or steatosis to interpret a lesion. Graph-based prior reasoning (GPR) builds a graph whose nodes are the enhanced lesion features and learnable class prototypes, and uses the base model's prior class probabilities as conditional messages so reliable priors are amplified and unreliable ones suppressed. The combined loss has three terms — lesion-level focal loss, patient-level malignancy loss, and screening loss — that reproduce the clinical cascade from screening to diagnosis.

What would settle it

Run PLUS on a held-out set of NCCT cases where the base segmenter's lesion recall is low, or corrupt the input lesion masks by randomly adding or removing voxels; if lesion-level F1 does not drop or the gains disappear, the proposed mask-conditioned reasoning is not the cause of the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a classification-focused wrapper, rather than a new segmentation architecture, is what closes the gap between finding lesions and telling malignant from benign on NCCT. PLUS does this by extracting features only inside the liver mask and each lesion mask, exchanging information between the two with hierarchical dual cross-attention at multiple scales, and then refining the base model's uncertain prior probabilities with a graph that connects lesion features to class prototypes. A three-part loss mirrors clinical workflow: lesion-level focal loss, patient-level malignancy loss over the worst lesion, and a screening loss for any tumor. The reported result is consistent gains across three different segmentation baselines, with the largest on PLAN. The authors attribute the improvement to explicit modeling of the lesion–liver relationship that detection-only models lack.

Load-bearing premise

The gains presume the pre-trained segmentation model already finds the liver and lesions well; if the base model misses lesions or produces false positive masks on NCCT, the feature extraction and prior predictions degrade and the reported F1 improvements shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing NCCT lesion screening pipelines can be upgraded without retraining the segmentation backbone, since PLUS only consumes the backbone's masks and class logits.
  • Lesion-level detection and patient-level malignant versus benign diagnosis improve together, which is the combination needed for opportunistic cancer screening.
  • The architecture-agnostic design means the same wrapper should transfer to newer 3D segmentation models as they appear.
  • The graph-based prior reasoning path provides a template for correcting unreliable base-model predictions in other medical imaging tasks.
  • The hierarchical loss structure ties model training to the clinical cascade of screening, lesion analysis, and diagnosis, making the outputs directly relevant to care decisions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • PLUS's global-local recipe is organ-agnostic: the same HDA plus GPR wrapper could be pointed at other NCCT screening targets such as the pancreas or esophagus, though the paper only demonstrates liver lesions.
  • Because PLUS only touches features inside an existing model's masks, it should in principle compose with future backbones without modification; a cheap test is to plug it into a Mamba or pure-transformer segmenter not in the paper.
  • The reported gains are on a single test split of 1,200 patients; external multi-center validation would clarify whether the mid-probability calibration improvements shown in the probability correlation analysis generalize.
  • If mask dependence is the bottleneck, ensembling segmentations from multiple base models into the ROI inputs could push the F1 gains further than any single segmenter.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PLUS, a plug-and-play module for enhancing focal liver lesion (FLL) diagnosis on non-contrast CT. Given an arbitrary 3D segmentation model that supplies a liver mask, per-lesion masks, and preliminary classification logits, PLUS refines predictions using three components: a hierarchical dual attention (HDA) mechanism that fuses global liver features with local lesion features, a graph-based prior reasoning (GPR) module that conditionally combines pretrained priors with learned prototypes, and a combined lesion-level, patient-level, and screening loss. Experiments on a curated dataset of 8,651 patients with 28,853 annotated lesions show consistent F1 improvements when PLUS is attached to nnUNet, Mask2Former, and PLAN. The best configuration, PLAN+PLUS, is reported to improve lesion-level F1 by 5.66 percentage points, malignant patient-level F1 by 6.26, and benign patient-level F1 by 4.03 relative to PLAN. Code is made available.

Significance. The strengths of the paper are the large clinical dataset, the consistency of the plug-and-play gains across three structurally different segmentation baselines, and the release of code. If the reported results are reproducible, PLUS is a practically relevant contribution to opportunistic liver lesion screening on non-contrast CT, a setting where contrast-enhanced imaging is often unavailable. However, the manuscript as written has a definitional gap in the training loss for lesion-free patients, and the statistical support for the headline improvements is incomplete (no confidence intervals, garbled p-value text). These issues are load-bearing because the loss definitions are the actual training objective and the 'significant' claim is unverifiable from the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Training Paradigm (loss definitions L_P, L_S, L_total)] The patient-level loss L_P = -(1/M) Σ_j [Y_j log(max_{i∈S_j} p^j_{i,malig}) + (1-Y_j) log(1 - max_{i∈S_j} p^j_{i,malig})] and the screening loss L_S = -(1/M) Σ_j [y_j log q_j + (1-y_j) log(1-q_j)] with q_j = max_{i∈S_j} (p_{i,malig} ∥ p_{i,beni}) both take a maximum over the detected lesion set S_j. The dataset description explicitly includes 'patients with or without liver tumors', so for a lesion-free patient S_j is empty and both losses are undefined. Since L_total = αL_L + βL_P + (1-α-β)L_S is the stated training objective, the method is not fully specified. Please state exactly how empty S_j is handled (e.g., skipping such patients in L_P/L_S, setting q_j = 0, or using a fallback), and confirm that the released code implements this behavior. This is not a cosmetic issue: every PLUS model is trained with this objective, and the screening and patient-level metrics are directly affected.
  2. [Table 2, Ablation Study] The full PLUS model with combined loss (last row) has a lesion-level F1 of 65.11, while the +GPR variant without the combined loss (third row) has a lesion-level F1 of 65.87. The paper describes the effect of adding the combined loss as 'slight deterioration at the lesion level', but the drop is 0.76 F1 points. Because the combined loss is a core claim of the framework, the authors should explain the trade-off in more detail: why is the full model preferred over the +GPR variant when lesion-level detection is a stated primary goal, and what are the patient-level metrics for the +HDA and +GPR variants? The current presentation leaves the reader uncertain whether the reported 'best' model is actually the best for the intended clinical screening use case.
  3. [Figures 3(a) and all tables (statistical reporting)] No confidence intervals, standard deviations, or per-fold results are reported for any of the F1 or AUC numbers, despite the fact that the segmentation pretraining used 5-fold cross-validation. The text states improvements are 'significant', but the only significance evidence is Fig. 3(a), where the p-value text is unreadable ('p = 4 12 < 0.05' and 'p = 3 10 < 0.05'). Please add bootstrap confidence intervals or per-fold results for the main comparisons, fix the figure text, and describe the statistical test used. This is necessary for the reader to assess whether the headline gains are meaningfully larger than run-to-run variation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3(a)] The axis labels and p-value annotations contain corrupted glyphs ('PLA/glyph1197', 'p = 4 12', 'p = 3 10'); these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.2, screening loss] The definition q_j = max_{i∈S_j} (p_{i,malig} ∥ p_{i,beni.}) uses an unexplained parallel symbol; please define it precisely, presumably as an element-wise maximum or a scalar aggregation.
  3. [Section 2.2 / Table 1] The evaluation metrics 'lesion-level F1' and 'patient-level F1' are used throughout but never formally defined; please specify how predicted lesions are matched to ground-truth lesions (e.g., IoU threshold) and how per-patient scores are aggregated.
  4. [Table 1] The variant rows 'PLAN+PLUS(distill.)', 'PLUS(gated)', and 'PLUS(weighted)' place citations inside the method names; consider describing these fusion baselines in the text or caption instead.
  5. [Abstract and Section 1] The reported changes (e.g., '5.66%') should be described as percentage-point differences in F1, since F1 is already a percentage-like quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PLUS's gains are measured on a held-out test set; self-citations to PLAN are baselines, not load-bearing proofs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons on a held-out test set (1,200 patients) against baselines including nnUNet, Mask2Former, and PLAN. PLUS's modules (HDA, GPR, combined loss) are trained on the training split with ground-truth labels and then evaluated on the test split; no reported metric is a re-fit of a fitted constant or a quantity that equals its own input by construction. The base model's segmentation masks and prior logits are used as conditional inputs to the plug-in, but the final predictions are produced by learned encoders, attention, graph reasoning, and classifiers that are optimized with supervised losses, so the outputs are not definitionally equal to the inputs. Self-citations to PLAN (Yan et al., 2023) and other prior Alibaba/MICCAI work are used as baselines or motivation, but the same PLUS framework is also validated with nnUNet and Mask2Former, which are external methods, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The undefined max over an empty lesion set in L_P and L_S for lesion-free patients is a methodological ambiguity and a correctness risk, but it does not constitute circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the experimental claims; a score of 2 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations, not any circular reduction.

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

The central claim rests on the quality of the base segmentation masks and the annotated dataset. The model itself does not introduce new physical entities. The main free parameters are the loss weights and architecture choices, which are fixed without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (lesion-level loss weight) = 0.5
    Weights for lesion-level loss in L_total; chosen without sensitivity analysis (Implementation Details).
  • beta (patient-level loss weight) = 0.3
    Weights for patient-level loss in L_total; chosen without sensitivity analysis (Implementation Details).
  • gamma (focal loss parameter)
    Used in lesion-level focal loss; exact value not reported.
  • K (number of pooling scales in HDA) = 4
    Architecture hyperparameter; chosen without sensitivity analysis (Implementation Details).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Base segmentation models produce reliable liver and lesion masks
    Section 2.2: feature extraction multiplies input by masks M_H and M_s_i; inaccurate masks would corrupt features.
  • domain assumption Ground truth labels from pathology, imaging features, and follow-up are accurate
    Dataset section: ground-truth diagnosis comes from pathology reports, imaging, and follow-up; mislabels would bias the evaluation.
  • domain assumption The two-center dataset is representative of the target screening population
    The paper does not report external validation or demographic breakdown; generalizability to other centers is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PLUS: Plug-and-Play Enhanced Liver Lesion Diagnosis Model on Non-Contrast CT Scans." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHLNHPBI

@misc{pith2026250703872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PLUS: Plug-and-Play Enhanced Liver Lesion Diagnosis Model on Non-Contrast CT Scans},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHLNHPBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03872}
}
read the original abstract

Focal liver lesions (FLL) are common clinical findings during physical examination. Early diagnosis and intervention of liver malignancies are crucial to improving patient survival. Although the current 3D segmentation paradigm can accurately detect lesions, it faces limitations in distinguishing between malignant and benign liver lesions, primarily due to its inability to differentiate subtle variations between different lesions. Furthermore, existing methods predominantly rely on specialized imaging modalities such as multi-phase contrast-enhanced CT and magnetic resonance imaging, whereas non-contrast CT (NCCT) is more prevalent in routine abdominal imaging. To address these limitations, we propose PLUS, a plug-and-play framework that enhances FLL analysis on NCCT images for arbitrary 3D segmentation models. In extensive experiments involving 8,651 patients, PLUS demonstrated a significant improvement with existing methods, improving the lesion-level F1 score by 5.66%, the malignant patient-level F1 score by 6.26%, and the benign patient-level F1 score by 4.03%. Our results demonstrate the potential of PLUS to improve malignant FLL screening using widely available NCCT imaging substantially.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    González

    John Arevalo, Thamar Solorio, Manuel Montes y Gómez, and Fabio A. González. Gated multimodal units for information fusion. In International Conference on Learning Representations. IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    The liver tumor segmentation benchmark (lits)

    Patrick Bilic, Patrick Christ, Hongwei Bran Li, Eugene Vorontsov, Avi Ben-Cohen, Georgios Kaissis, Adi Szeskin, Colin Jacobs, Gabriel Efrain Humpire Mamani, Gabriel Chartrand, et al. The liver tumor segmentation benchmark (lits). Medical Image Analysis, 84: 0 102680, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Large-scale pancreatic cancer detection via non-contrast ct and deep learning

    Kai Cao, Yingda Xia, Jiawen Yao, Xu Han, Lukas Lambert, Tingting Zhang, Wei Tang, Gang Jin, Hui Jiang, Xu Fang, et al. Large-scale pancreatic cancer detection via non-contrast ct and deep learning. Nature medicine, 29 0 (12): 0 3033--3043, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Per-pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmentation

    Bowen Cheng, Alex Schwing, and Alexander Kirillov. Per-pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 17864--17875, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Schwing, Alexander Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar

    Bowen Cheng, Ishan Misra, Alexander G. Schwing, Alexander Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar. Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1280--1289, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Baveno vii--renewing consensus in portal hypertension

    Roberto De Franchis, Jaime Bosch, Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, Thomas Reiberger, Cristina Ripoll, Juan G Abraldes, Agustin Albillos, Anna Baiges, Jasmohan Bajaj, Rafael Ba \ n ares, et al. Baveno vii--renewing consensus in portal hypertension. Journal of hepatology, 76 0 (4): 0 959--974, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Knowledge distillation: A survey

    Jianping Gou, Baosheng Yu, Stephen J Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Knowledge distillation: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 129 0 (6): 0 1789--1819, 2021

    2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Roth, and Daguang Xu

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Dong Yang, Holger R. Roth, and Daguang Xu. Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. 2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1748--1758, 2021

    2022

  2. [10]

    Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun

    Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770--778, 2015

    2016

  3. [11]

    Lidia: Precise liver tumor diagnosis on multi-phase contrast-enhanced ct via iterative fusion and asymmetric contrastive learning

    Wei Huang, Wei Liu, Xiaoming Zhang, Xiaoli Yin, Xu Han, Chunli Li, Yuan Gao, Yu Shi, Le Lu, Ling Zhang, et al. Lidia: Precise liver tumor diagnosis on multi-phase contrast-enhanced ct via iterative fusion and asymmetric contrastive learning. In International Conference on Medi...

    2024

  4. [12]

    nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon AA Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier-Hein. nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Methods, 18 0 (2): 0 203--211, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    nnu-net revisited: A call for rigorous validation in 3d medical image segmentation

    Fabian Isensee, Tassilo Wald, Constantin Ulrich, Michael Baumgartner, Saikat Roy, Klaus Maier-Hein, and Paul F Jaeger. nnu-net revisited: A call for rigorous validation in 3d medical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assist...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Improving 3-d medical image segmentation at boundary regions using local self-attention and global volume mixing

    Daniya Najiha Abdul Kareem, Mustansar Fiaz, Noa Novershtern, Jacob Hanna, and Hisham Cholakkal. Improving 3-d medical image segmentation at boundary regions using local self-attention and global volume mixing. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 5 0 (6): 0 3233--3244, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Improved esophageal varices assessment from non-contrast ct scans

    Chunli Li, Xiaoming Zhang, Yuan Gao, Xiaoli Yin, Le Lu, Ling Zhang, Ke Yan, and Yu Shi. Improved esophageal varices assessment from non-contrast ct scans. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 349--359. Springer, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Acg clinical guideline: the diagnosis and management of focal liver lesions

    Jorge A Marrero, Joseph Ahn, Rajender K Reddy, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology, et al. Acg clinical guideline: the diagnosis and management of focal liver lesions. Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology, 109 0 (9)...

    2014

  11. [19]

    Graph-based region and boundary aggregation for biomedical image segmentation

    Yanda Meng, Hongrun Zhang, Yitian Zhao, Xiaoyun Yang, Yihong Qiao, Ian JC MacCormick, Xiaowei Huang, and Yalin Zheng. Graph-based region and boundary aggregation for biomedical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41 0 (3): 0 690--701, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Hifiseg: High-frequency information enhanced polyp segmentation with global-local vision transformer

    Jingjing Ren, Xiaoyong Zhang, and Lina Zhang. Hifiseg: High-frequency information enhanced polyp segmentation with global-local vision transformer. IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Vm-unet: Vision mamba unet for medical image segmentation

    Jiacheng Ruan, Jincheng Li, and Suncheng Xiang. Vm-unet: Vision mamba unet for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02491, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization

    Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 618-...

    2017

  15. [23]

    E2Net: An edge enhanced network for accurate liver and tumor segmentation on CT scans

    Youbao Tang, Yuxing Tang, Yingying Zhu, Jing Xiao, and Ronald M Summers. E2Net: An edge enhanced network for accurate liver and tumor segmentation on CT scans . In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 512--522. Springer, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Glfnet: Global-local (frequency) filter networks for efficient medical image segmentation

    Athanasios Tragakis, Qianying Liu, Chaitanya Kaul, Swalpa Kumar Roy, Hang Dai, Fani Deligianni, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Daniele Faccio. Glfnet: Global-local (frequency) filter networks for efficient medical image segmentation. In IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical I...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    A cascaded approach for ultraly high performance lesion detection and false positive removal in liver ct scans

    Fakai Wang, Chi-Tung Cheng, Chien-Wei Peng, Ke Yan, Min Wu, Le Lu, Chien-Hung Liao, and Ling Zhang. A cascaded approach for ultraly high performance lesion detection and false positive removal in liver ct scans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16036, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cycmis: Cycle-consistent cross-domain medical image segmentation via diverse image augmentation

    Runze Wang and Guoyan Zheng. Cycmis: Cycle-consistent cross-domain medical image segmentation via diverse image augmentation. Medical Image Analysis, 76: 0 102328, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Few-shot medical image segmentation regularized with self-reference and contrastive learning

    Runze Wang, Qin Zhou, and Guoyan Zheng. Few-shot medical image segmentation regularized with self-reference and contrastive learning. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 514--523. Springer, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Focal liver lesion diagnosis with deep learning and multistage ct imaging

    Yi Wei, Meiyi Yang, Meng Zhang, Feifei Gao, Ning Zhang, Fubi Hu, Xiao Zhang, Shasha Zhang, Zixing Huang, Lifeng Xu, et al. Focal liver lesion diagnosis with deep learning and multistage ct imaging. Nature communications, 15 0 (1): 0 7040, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Liver tumor screening and diagnosis in ct with pixel-lesion-patient network

    Ke Yan, Xiaoli Yin, Yingda Xia, Fakai Wang, Shu Wang, Yuan Gao, Jiawen Yao, Chunli Li, Xiaoyu Bai, Jingren Zhou, et al. Liver tumor screening and diagnosis in ct with pixel-lesion-patient network. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Int...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Effective opportunistic esophageal cancer screening using noncontrast ct imaging

    Jiawen Yao, Xianghua Ye, Yingda Xia, Jian Zhou, Yu Shi, Ke Yan, Fang Wang, Lili Lin, Haogang Yu, Xian-Sheng Hua, et al. Effective opportunistic esophageal cancer screening using noncontrast ct imaging. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assiste...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Tensor sparse representation for 3-d medical image fusion using weighted average rule

    Haitao Yin. Tensor sparse representation for 3-d medical image fusion using weighted average rule. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 65 0 (11): 0 2622--2633, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Weakly-supervised teacher-student network for liver tumor segmentation from non-enhanced images

    Dong Zhang, Bo Chen, Jaron Chong, and Shuo Li. Weakly-supervised teacher-student network for liver tumor segmentation from non-enhanced images . Medical Image Analysis, 70, 2021. ISSN 13618423

    2021

  26. [34]

    Revisiting the trustworthiness of saliency methods in radiology ai

    Jiajin Zhang, Hanqing Chao, Giridhar Dasegowda, Ge Wang, Mannudeep K Kalra, and Pingkun Yan. Revisiting the trustworthiness of saliency methods in radiology ai. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, 6 0 (1): 0 e220221, 2023 a

    2023

  27. [35]

    Spectral adversarial mixup for few-shot unsupervised domain adaptation

    Jiajin Zhang, Hanqing Chao, Amit Dhurandhar, Pin-Yu Chen, Ali Tajer, Yangyang Xu, and Pingkun Yan. Spectral adversarial mixup for few-shot unsupervised domain adaptation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 728--738....

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.