Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

DiffOSeg: Omni Medical Image Segmentation via Multi-Expert Collaboration Diffusion Model

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DiffOSeg proposes a two-stage categorical-diffusion framework that generates both group-consensus and expert-specific segmentations from one model, beating prior multi-rater methods on nearly all evaluated metrics with 13.1 M parameters.

desk verdict Stage I's consensus label is not a valid categorical diffusion state, so the method is under-specified despite a promising direction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13087 v2 pith:S5Z4AGJL submitted 2025-07-17 cs.CV

Han Zhang , Xiangde Luo , Yong Chen , Kang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-ratersegmentationmedicalimageannotationvariabilitycategoricaldiffusionmodelconsensus-drivenpreference-drivenexpert-specificpromptsprobabilistic
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

DiffOSeg is an attempt to settle a standing dilemma in multi-rater medical image segmentation: systems so far have produced either a consensus (gold standard) segmentation or expert-specific ones, but not both from a single model. The paper argues that a two-stage categorical-diffusion framework can do both, training Stage I to sample from a probabilistically weighted blend of all experts' masks and Stage II to steer the same denoising backbone with per-expert prompts. If the claim holds, one model could give a clinician both the boundary the group of experts would agree on and the drawing any particular expert prefers, with realistic variation in both. On LIDC-IDRI and NPC-170, the paper reports better generalized energy distance and threshold-aware Dice than prior probabilistic methods in the consensus setting, and the best mean per-expert Dice in the preference setting, using about half of D-Persona's parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-stage categorical (multinomial) diffusion model with a probabilistic consensus start state; categorical diffusion means the state is a discrete label rather than continuous noise. Stage I's training state is the weighted combination $z_c = \mathbf{w} \times [z_1, \dots, z_M]^T$, where $\mathbf{w} \in [0,1]^M$ with $\|\mathbf{w}\|_1 \le M$ realizes three scenarios, single vote, subgroup consensus, or full vote, and the reverse process follows the multinomial diffusion posterior of [9,29], trained by minimizing the KL divergence between the forward posterior $q(z_{t-1} \mid z_t, z_0)$ and the predicted reverse distribution $p_\theta(z_{t-1} \mid z_t, I)$. Stage II's mechanism is the plug-in prompt block: global average pooling plus a linear-softmax layer generates fusion weights, a $3\times3$ convolution modulates the prompt bank, and cascaded channel attention blocks inject the selected expert's prompt into the encoder features, so expert identity steers denoising without separate per-expert networks. Both stages share the same KL objective and a 13.1 M-parameter denoising UNet backbone.

What would settle it

Choose a pixel where two experts disagree and set the weights to $\mathbf{w} = [0.5, 0.5]$. The consensus row becomes $[0.5, 0.5]$, which is neither a discrete label nor a normalized probability vector; substituting such a state into the categorical transition behind Eq. (4), whose posterior term relies on $\delta_{z_0, z_t}$, leaves the KL objective in Eq. (5) undefined. A reader could check this directly in the released code, or more simply try to reproduce the reported GED and Dice$_{soft}$ numbers under any concrete choice of the distribution of $\mathbf{w}$, since the paper fixes only the support set and never the sampling law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that consensus and individual preference are not competing objectives that force a compromise; they can be assigned to two linked stages of one diffusion model. Stage I treats a weighted linear mixture of the $M$ experts' one-hot masks, $z_c = \mathbf{w} \times [z_1, \dots, z_M]^T$, as the starting state of a categorical diffusion process, so repeatedly sampling the learned reverse process yields diverse masks that still respect the group's agreement. Stage II initializes from Stage I's weights and adds an expert identity, encoded as a one-hot vector plus a learnable prompt block, so the same backbone reproduces each expert's individual annotation style. On LIDC-IDRI the model improves consensus metrics over the strongest competitor (generalized energy distance, a distribution-diversity measure, drops roughly 37-45% depending on sample count) and raises mean per-expert Dice from 89.17 to 90.99; on NPC-170 it lowers GED30 from 0.2385 to 0.1822 and raises mean per-expert Dice from 76.19 to 76.88. The paper concludes that omni-view segmentation, both the group consensus and each expert's preference, is achievable in a single parameter-efficient framework.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the weighted average of the experts' one-hot masks is a legitimate starting state for the categorical diffusion process, even though those averaged rows are generally neither one-hot nor normalized to sum to one, and the paper never specifies the probability distribution from which the weight vector $\mathbf{w}$ is sampled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single diffusion backbone can serve both segmentation paradigms, so a clinical system no longer has to choose between a consensus model and a personalized model; a single training pipeline produces both.
  • The plug-in prompt block decouples expert identity from network weights, meaning adding or swapping a rater's style should cost only a prompt, not a retrained branch.
  • Under the paper's results, consensus fidelity (threshold-aware Dice) and diversity (generalized energy distance) improve together, which runs against the usual expectation that sampling diverse masks sacrifices accuracy.
  • The reported parameter count (13.1 M, about 54% below the main competitor) suggests the two-stage design stays within a modest computational budget, a practical condition for clinical deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because expert identity is stored in a prompt rather than in separate weights, the prompt space may support interpolation: a new rater whose style sits between two known experts could plausibly be approximated by blending their prompts, a mechanism the paper leaves open when it lists few-shot adaptation as future work.
  • The weighted-consensus idea from Stage I is not tied to diffusion; applying the same single-vote, subgroup, or full-vote weighting as stochastic target augmentation for any multi-rater segmentation loss is a testable variant the paper does not explore.
  • The uncertainty maps in the paper are averages over many sample draws; a natural downstream use not discussed there is to flag regions where consensus-conditioned and expert-conditioned samples disagree, directing radiologists to the genuinely ambiguous boundaries.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. DiffOSeg proposes a two-stage diffusion-based framework for multi-rater medical image segmentation. Stage I constructs a 'probabilistic consensus' target by taking a weighted linear combination of expert one-hot masks and trains a categorical diffusion model to approximate the consensus distribution. Stage II injects expert-specific prompts, driven by a one-hot expert identity vector, to produce preference-aware segmentations. The method is evaluated on LIDC-IDRI and NPC-170 against several probabilistic and personalized segmentation baselines, reporting GED and Dice (soft) metrics, and claims state-of-the-art performance with 13.1M parameters, 54% fewer than D-Persona.

Significance. If the Stage I formulation were correctly specified, the two-stage design is a plausible and practically motivated combination of consensus modeling and personalization, and the 13.1M parameter count is a concrete efficiency advantage over existing multi-rater methods. The choice of two public datasets, the inclusion of multiple baselines, and the ablation studies are strengths. However, the central consensus target in Stage I is not a valid input to the categorical diffusion machinery as written, and the paper's headline claim of outperforming all methods on all metrics is contradicted by its own tables. These issues currently undermine confidence in the reported experimental results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The consensus label zc = w × [z1,...,zM]^T is not a valid categorical diffusion state under the definitions given. Equation (2) allows any w in [0,1]^M with ||w||_1 ≤ M, including w=(1,...,1). For any pixel where expert masks disagree, the corresponding row of zc is then a count vector whose entries can exceed 1 and whose row sum equals M, so it is neither one-hot nor a normalized probability vector. The forward process q(z_t|z0) and reverse formula π(z_t,z0) in Eq. (4) are defined only for one-hot (or at least properly normalized) categorical states, and the KL objective in Eq. (5) is not defined for unnormalized counts. If the authors intended zc to be a soft label, they must specify the sampling distribution of W, normalize zc accordingly, and ensure that the network output p̂0 is row-normalized; none of these is stated. This issue is load-bearing because every Stage I result in Tables 1 and 3 depends on this training target.
  2. [Abstract, Tables 1 and 2] The abstract claims that 'our model outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods across all evaluated metrics,' but the paper's own tables contradict this. In Table 1, on NPC-170, DiffOSeg (Stage I) reports Ds30 = 79.83, which is lower than D-Persona's 80.40. In Table 2, on NPC-170, DiffOSeg (Stage II) reports DA2 = 74.03 versus D-Persona's 74.60 and DA4 = 75.07 versus D-Persona's 75.17. The claim should be qualified to 'most metrics' or the reported numbers must be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.1, inference paragraph] The text states that 'the denoising process begins with randomly sampled Gaussian noise,' but this is inconsistent with categorical diffusion, whose initial state should be sampled from a categorical distribution (e.g., uniform over the state space), not from a Gaussian. This inconsistency reinforces the concern that the categorical formulation is not implemented as described and further complicates reproducibility.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'stragety'; it should be 'strategy'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains the typo 'unncertainty'; it should be 'uncertainty'.
  3. [Section 3.1, Implementation Details] The text says '9,0000 iterations' for LIDC-IDRI Stage II; this appears to be a typo for '90,000 iterations'.
  4. [References] References [7] and [8] are duplicates of the same Ho et al. paper, and references [14] and [15] are duplicates of the same Liao et al. paper; they should be merged or renumbered.
  5. [Reproducibility] The paper states 'Source code is available' but provides only a repository URL with no commit hash, version tag, or artifact description; given the specification gaps in Eqs. (2)-(5), a pinned code release would be essential for verifying the method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; DiffOSeg's reported gains come from independent train/test evaluations, with self-citations limited to benchmarking choices.

full rationale

No load-bearing circularity is present. DiffOSeg's Stage I trains a categorical diffusion model to generate the random weighted consensus target zc = w×[z1,...,zM]^T, and Stage II fine-tunes the same objective with expert-identity prompts. Neither stage fits a parameter to a test quantity and then reports that quantity as a prediction; the reported GED and per-expert Dice values are computed on held-out patient splits of LIDC-IDRI and NPC-170 against expert annotations, so the evaluation does not reduce to the training loss by construction. The consensus target is built from the same type of expert annotations used for evaluation, but this is ordinary supervised/generative training with train/test separation, not circularity. Citations to D-Persona ([26], shared author Xiangde Luo) supply the evaluation protocol, the Dice_soft metric, and baseline scores; these are benchmarking choices rather than load-bearing premises of the method, and the tables also include independently implemented PhiSeg and independent baselines. The mathematical gap noted in Eqs. (2)-(4) — zc may be a non-normalized multi-hot count vector, for which the categorical transition pi(zt,z0) is not a valid distribution — is an under-specification/correctness issue, not an equivalence of output to input, so it does not raise the circularity score under the stated rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on treating weighted sums of one-hot expert masks as categorical diffusion states and on a weight-sampling scheme that is never fully defined. The generative equations are inherited from prior categorical diffusion work. The empirical claims depend on benchmark comparisons whose baseline numbers are partly cited from a prior paper by an overlapping group, with no error bars.

free parameters (1)
  • Probabilistic weight vector w sampling rule
    The distribution over W is never specified. The support set S is defined, but no probability measure or normalization is given, so the consensus targets and therefore the trained model depend on an unspecified choice.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Weighted linear combinations of one-hot expert masks are valid categorical diffusion states.
    Cc = w x [z1,...,zM]^T is treated as the categorical target z0, but categorical diffusion requires one-hot rows. With unnormalized or multi-element w, zc rows need not be one-hot or sum to 1. See Section 2.1, Equations (2) and (3).
  • ad hoc to paper The random weight vector w has a well-defined sampling distribution.
    Equation (2) defines the support S but not a probability distribution on S. The paper also calls ||w||_1 the number of active experts even though w is real-valued, so ||w||_1 is a sum of weights, not a count.
  • standard math Categorical diffusion transitions from prior work apply unchanged.
    Equation (4) is taken from Hoogeboom et al. and Zbinden et al. and is only valid when z0 is a one-hot categorical variable. The paper does not re-derive or adapt the transitions for soft consensus labels.
  • domain assumption One-hot expert identity plus a prompt block is sufficient to capture expert-specific annotation style.
    Stage II conditions only on a one-hot expert ID and learned prompts. The paper does not model inter-expert correlations or richer expert descriptors, yet claims this captures expert preferences. See Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiffOSeg: Omni Medical Image Segmentation via Multi-Expert Collaboration Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S5Z4AGJL

@misc{pith2026250713087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiffOSeg: Omni Medical Image Segmentation via Multi-Expert Collaboration Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S5Z4AGJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13087}
}
read the original abstract

Annotation variability remains a substantial challenge in medical image segmentation, stemming from ambiguous imaging boundaries and diverse clinical expertise. Traditional deep learning methods producing single deterministic segmentation predictions often fail to capture these annotator biases. Although recent studies have explored multi-rater segmentation, existing methods typically focus on a single perspective -- either generating a probabilistic ``gold standard'' consensus or preserving expert-specific preferences -- thus struggling to provide a more omni view. In this study, we propose DiffOSeg, a two-stage diffusion-based framework, which aims to simultaneously achieve both consensus-driven (combining all experts' opinions) and preference-driven (reflecting experts' individual assessments) segmentation. Stage I establishes population consensus through a probabilistic consensus strategy, while Stage II captures expert-specific preference via adaptive prompts. Demonstrated on two public datasets (LIDC-IDRI and NPC-170), our model outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods across all evaluated metrics. Source code is available at https://github.com/string-ellipses/DiffOSeg .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13087 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DiffOSeg pipeline. (a) Stage I (Training): Probabilistic consensus stragety dy￾namiclly integrates multi-expert annotations (Sec 2.1); (b) Stage II (Training): Adap￾tive prompts model expert preferences (Sec 2.2); (c) Plug-in prompt block (Sec 2.2). that dynamically integrates multi-expert annotations, enabling the model to rec￾oncile both aspects by considering different expert subsets. Given an image I ∈ R C×H×W w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Consensus-driven segmentation visualization on both datasets. (a) Original im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Preference-driven segmentation visualization on both datasets. Row 1: original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Medical physics38(2), 915–931 (2011)

    Armato III, S.G., McLennan, G., Bidaut, L., McNitt-Gray, M.F., Meyer, C.R., Reeves, A.P., Zhao, B., Aberle, D.R., Henschke, C.I., Hoffman, E.A., et al.: The lungimagedatabaseconsortium(lidc)andimagedatabaseresourceinitiative(idri): a completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans. Medical physics38(2), 915–931 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shen- zhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 22

    Baumgartner, C.F., Tezcan, K.C., Chaitanya, K., Hötker, A.M., Muehlematter, U.J., Schawkat, K., Becker, A.S., Donati, O., Konukoglu, E.: Phiseg: Capturing un- certainty in medical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shen- zhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedi...

    2019

  3. [3]

    NeuroImage148, 77–102 (2017)

    Carass, A., Roy, S., Jog, A., Cuzzocreo, J.L., Magrath, E., Gherman, A., Button, J., Nguyen, J., Prados, F., Sudre, C.H., et al.: Longitudinal multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation: resource and challenge. NeuroImage148, 77–102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Chen, S., Sun, P., Song, Y., Luo, P.: Diffusiondet: Diffusion model for object de- tection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 19830–19843 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Chinese clinical oncology7(4), 37–37 (2018)

    Endo, M., Lin, P.P.: Surgical margins in the management of extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Chinese clinical oncology7(4), 37–37 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07328 (2022)

    Gao, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, C., He, X.: Modeling multimodal aleatoric uncertainty in segmentation with mixture of stochastic experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07328 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  7. [8]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

  8. [9]

    Advances in neural in- formation processing systems34, 12454–12465 (2021)

    Hoogeboom, E., Nielsen, D., Jaini, P., Forré, P., Welling, M.: Argmax flows and multinomial diffusion: Learning categorical distributions. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems34, 12454–12465 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [10]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Jia, M., Tang, L., Chen, B.C., Cardie, C., Belongie, S., Hariharan, B., Lim, S.N.: Visual prompt tuning. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 709–727. Springer (2022)

    2022

  2. [11]

    Advances in neural information processing sys- tems31(2018)

    Kohl, S., Romera-Paredes, B., Meyer, C., De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J.R., Maier-Hein, K., Eslami, S., Jimenez Rezende, D., Ronneberger, O.: A probabilistic u-net for segmentation of ambiguous images. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems31(2018)

    2018

  3. [12]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learn- ing

    Kotelnikov, A., Baranchuk, D., Rubachev, I., Babenko, A.: Tabddpm: Modelling tabular data with diffusion models. In: International Conference on Machine Learn- ing. pp. 17564–17579. PMLR (2023)

    2023

  4. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190 (2021)

    Li, X.L., Liang, P.: Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

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

    Liao, Z., Hu, S., Xie, Y., Xia, Y.: Transformer-based annotation bias-aware medical image segmentation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 24–34. Springer (2023)

    2023

  6. [15]

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

    Liao, Z., Hu, S., Xie, Y., Xia, Y.: Transformer-based annotation bias-aware medical image segmentation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 24–34. Springer (2023) 10 Zhang et al

    2023

  7. [16]

    Medical Image Analysis92, 103028 (2024)

    Liao, Z., Hu, S., Xie, Y., Xia, Y.: Modeling annotator preference and stochastic an- notation error for medical image segmentation. Medical Image Analysis92, 103028 (2024)

    2024

  8. [17]

    The international journal of cardiovascular imaging26, 57–64 (2010)

    Luijnenburg, S.E., Robbers-Visser, D., Moelker, A., Vliegen, H.W., Mulder, B.J., Helbing, W.A.: Intra-observer and interobserver variability of biventricular func- tion, volumes and mass in patients with congenital heart disease measured by cmr imaging. The international journ...

    2010

  9. [18]

    International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics (2024)

    Luo, X., Wang, H., Xu, J., Li, L., Zhao, Y., He, Y., Huang, H., Xiao, J., Song, T., Zhang, S., et al.: Generalizable magnetic resonance imaging-based nasopharyngeal carcinoma delineation: Bridging gaps across multiple centers and raters with active learning. International Jour...

    2024

  10. [19]

    Nature Communications15(1), 654 (2024)

    Ma, J., He, Y., Li, F., Han, L., You, C., Wang, B.: Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications15(1), 654 (2024)

    2024

  11. [20]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 71275–71293 (2023)

    Potlapalli, V., Zamir, S.W., Khan, S.H., Shahbaz Khan, F.: Promptir: Prompt- ing for all-in-one image restoration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 71275–71293 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

    In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18....

    2015

  13. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Schmidt, A., Morales-Alvarez, P., Molina, R.: Probabilistic modeling of inter-and intra-observer variability in medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 21097–21106 (2023)

    2023

  14. [23]

    Radiotherapy and On- cology77(2), 182–190 (2005)

    Steenbakkers, R.J., Duppen, J.C., Fitton, I., Deurloo, K.E., Zijp, L., Uitterho- eve, A.L., Rodrigus, P.T., Kramer, G.W., Bussink, J., De Jaeger, K., et al.: Ob- server variation in target volume delineation of lung cancer related to radiation oncologist–computer interaction: ...

    2005

  15. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition

    Tanno, R., Saeedi, A., Sankaranarayanan, S., Alexander, D.C., Silberman, N.: Learning from noisy labels by regularized estimation of annotator confusion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition. pp. 11244–11253 (2019)

    2019

  16. [25]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging23(7), 903–921 (2004)

    Warfield, S.K., Zou, K.H., Wells, W.M.: Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (staple): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging23(7), 903–921 (2004)

    2004

  17. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wu, Y., Luo, X., Xu, Z., Guo, X., Ju, L., Ge, Z., Liao, W., Cai, J.: Diversified and personalized multi-rater medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11470– 11479 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Wu, Y., Xie, Y., Luo, X., Wu, Q., Cai, J.: Dataset, challenge, and evaluation for tumor segmentation variability. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 11302–11303 (2024)

    2024

  19. [28]

    In: International Workshop on Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart

    Xin, B., Ye, M., Axel, L., Metaxas, D.N.: Fill the k-space and refine the image: Prompting for dynamic and multi-contrast mri reconstruction. In: International Workshop on Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart. pp. 261–

  20. [29]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Zbinden, L., Doorenbos, L., Pissas, T., Huber, A.T., Sznitman, R., Márquez-Neila, P.: Stochastic segmentation with conditional categorical diffusion models. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1119–1129 (2023) DiffOSeg: Omni Medic...

    2023

  21. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhang, J., Xie, Y., Xia, Y., Shen, C.: Dodnet: Learning to segment multi-organ and tumors from multiple partially labeled datasets. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1195–1204 (2021)

    2021

  22. [31]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 15750– 15762 (2020)

    Zhang, L., Tanno, R., Xu, M.C., Jin, C., Jacob, J., Cicarrelli, O., Barkhof, F., Alexander, D.: Disentangling human error from ground truth in segmentation of medical images. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 15750– 15762 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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