Spatial-Aware Self-Supervision for Medical 3D Imaging with Multi-Granularity Observable Tasks

Meiling Chen; Yiqin Zhang; Zhengjie Zhang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Spatial-Aware Self-Supervision for Medical 3D Imaging with Multi-Granularity Observable Tasks

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that three observable spatial pretext tasks—adjacency classification, gap prediction, and route connectivity—can pretrain 3D medical imaging models to learn anatomy's layout from unlabeled CT/MRI volumes, with downstream seg

desk verdict Novel package of spatial SSL tasks, but the route loss telescopes to endpoint-only and the 'no detriment' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05967 v1 pith:OVVZE2GO submitted 2025-09-07 cs.CV

Yiqin Zhang , Meiling Chen , Zhengjie Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords self-supervisedlearning3DmedicalimagingspatialrelationshipmodelinginterpretabilityCTsegmentationDICOMspacingpretexttaskspretraining

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

The paper aims to show that self-supervised pretraining for 3D medical imaging does not have to be a black box. By predicting which sampled patches are adjacent, how far apart patches are in physical space, and what routes connect them, a shared backbone can learn the spatial layout of human anatomy from unlabeled CT and MRI scans, and that learning can be watched during training. On a downstream abdomen segmentation task, the pretrained backbones match standard self-supervised baselines in Dice and IoU, so the added interpretability is not bought with accuracy. The central claim is that explicit, visualization-centric spatial supervision is feasible in healthcare without detriment to performance.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a set of three pretext tasks applied to sampled 96×96×96 sub-regions of a volume. Coupled Relative Similarity Classification (CRSC) contrasts each patch with its nearest and farthest neighbors in latent space. Gap Matrix Prediction (GMP) regresses physical inter-patch distances derived from DICOM spacing metadata. Route-Based Connectivity Supervision (RBCS) runs depth-first traversals through patch centers and penalizes cumulative displacement error along each path. A momentum-averaged backbone supplies gradient-free features for all but one sampled patch, so the objective is supervised with low peak memory and computational cost independent of volume size.

What would settle it

Randomly permute or corrupt the DICOM spacing values used to construct the gap and route targets while keeping the rest of pretraining unchanged. If downstream AbdomenCT1K segmentation accuracy stays the same, then physical-gap supervision is not what carries the learned representation; likewise, if route visualizations still align with true patch centers under corrupted spacing, the alignment cannot be evidence of anatomical learning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that three observable spatial self-supervised tasks—coarse-grained coupled relative similarity classification, medium-granularity gap matrix prediction, and fine-grained route-based connectivity supervision—can teach a shared 3D backbone the spatial layout of human anatomy from unlabeled volumes. Route visualizations during training show predicted paths converging toward true patch centers, which the authors read as direct evidence that the model is learning where tissues sit in the body. After fine-tuning on the AbdomenCT1K segmentation task, the pretrained models achieve accuracy comparable to MoCoV3 and SimMIM baselines. The paper therefore asserts that explicit, visualiz

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that physical proximity of sampled patches is a reliable proxy for semantic relatedness—adjacent patches belong together and distant patches do not—and that DICOM-derived physical spacing is consistent enough across patients to supervise those predictions; the method itself weakens this by dropping per-axis distances when cross-subject anatomical gaps prove inconsistent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, self-supervised pretraining for 3D medical imaging can be designed to expose what the model learns about spatial layout, which directly addresses interpretability concerns in clinical AI.
Training progress can be monitored by visualizing route predictions: convergence of predicted paths to true patch centers indicates the model has acquired anatomical positional knowledge.
Because pretraining cost depends on the number of sampled sub-regions rather than the volume size, the approach is practical for large 3D scans with limited GPU memory.
DICOM spacing can serve as a free, scan-native supervisory signal for spatial self-supervision, potentially transferring across CT and MRI protocols that include spacing metadata.
The paper's frozen-backbone results suggest that the benefit of spatial pretraining is capacity-dependent: compact models lose more when the backbone is kept fixed.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the route-visualization protocol could double as a diagnostic for shortcut learning—if predicted routes align with coordinates but not with anatomy, the learned signal is geometric rather than semantic.
Beyond the paper: the same gap-and-route objectives might transfer naturally to tasks where physical coordinates are directly meaningful, such as registration, landmark localization, or surgical planning.
Beyond the paper: the authors' decision to supervise only the L2 magnitude of gaps, not per-axis distances, is a testable design choice; re-introducing per-axis losses on single-subject or posture-controlled data could reveal whether the inconsistency across patients is truly the limiting factor.
Beyond the paper: combining these observable spatial tasks with contrastive or masked-image objectives could yield a hybrid that keeps both interpretability and the stronger representation quality of existing methods.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper has a genuinely new combination of three spatial self-supervision tasks for 3D medical imaging. Coarse relative similarity classification, medium gap-matrix regression with DICOM spacing, and the idea of route-based connectivity are packaged in a way that doesn't appear in the cited literature, and the explicit contrast with GMIM is useful. The CRSC design, with momentum backbone and O(α) compute for O(α²) supervision, is neat. The authors also make an honest effort to ground targets in physical coordinates rather than learned parameters, which deserves credit.

The soft spots are serious, though. The RBCS loss as written telescopes: the cumulative displacement error Δ_k reduces to || (Ĉ_{s_α} − Ĉ_{s_1}) − (M_{s_α} − M_{s_1}) ||. Every DFS path with the same endpoints gives the same loss, and intermediate predicted coordinates get zero gradient. So the fine-grained route supervision that supports the paper's interpretability claim is vacuous as written. This is not a quibble about implementation detail; it's a load-bearing flaw in the method's core equation. If the intent was per-edge supervision, the paper needs to write that version.

The empirical support is also weaker than the abstract and discussion suggest. In Table 2, MedNeXt with Ours reaches 91.39 Dice against 94.20 with no pretraining, and SegFormer3D with Ours is 90.84 against 91.74. So the claim in Section 4 of 'without detriment to performance' is directly contradicted by the paper's own numbers. There are no ablations, no error bars, and no code or hyperparameters released, so the reader can't tell whether the gap is meaningful or what the free parameters should be.

The stress-test concern about RBCS holds up on reading the paper; I verified the telescoping myself. This is an internal inconsistency, not a disagreement about empirical interpretation. That said, the general idea of using physical spacing as a supervision signal is sound, and CRSC and GMP remain plausible.

Who is this for? Readers working on interpretable self-supervised learning for medical imaging will find the proposal worth discussing, but they should not take the current results at face value. I would send this to peer review because the idea is novel and fixable, but the referee should require correction of the RBCS loss, new experiments with error bars and ablations, and a sober revision of the performance claims. As written, the paper's central claim is not supported.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a self-supervised pretraining framework for 3D medical imaging built on three spatially interpretable pretext tasks: Coupled Relative Similarity Classification (CRSC), Gap Matrix Prediction (GMP), and Route-Based Connectivity Supervision (RBCS). The backbone is pretrained on a collection of unlabeled CT/MRI volumes and then fine-tuned for organ segmentation on AbdomenCT1K with MedNeXt and SegFormer3D. The central claim is that this design provides explicit, visualization-centric supervision of spatial layout without hurting downstream performance. The paper reports Dice scores that are broadly comparable to MoCoV3 and SimMIM but lower than full-supervision baselines, and it presents visualizations of route connectivity during training as evidence of interpretability.

Significance. If the proposed tasks genuinely teach spatial semantics and enable visualization of what the model learns, this would be a meaningful step toward interpretable self-supervision in medical imaging. The use of DICOM-derived physical coordinates as external supervision is a sound idea that avoids circularity, and the multi-granularity framing is reasonable. However, the manuscript has two load-bearing problems: the RBCS loss as written reduces to an endpoint-only objective, and the 'without detriment to performance' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2. The conceptual contribution is therefore not yet established.

major comments (2)

[§2.4] The RBCS loss telescopes. With Δ_k = || Σ_{t=1}^{α−1} [(M̂_{s_{t+1}}−M̂_{s_t}) − (M_{s_α}−M_{s_1})]||, the sum over predicted differences collapses to M̂_{s_α}−M̂_{s_1}. Thus Δ_k = ||(M̂_{s_α}−M̂_{s_1})−(M_{s_α}−M_{s_1})||, depending only on the first and last route elements. Gradients to all intermediate predicted coordinates are zero, so the route/connectivity between interior nodes is not supervised at all. This invalidates the 'fine-grained' interpretation of RBCS and undermines Fig. 3 as evidence of route learning. Please replace the loss with a per-edge formulation (e.g., Σ_t ||(M̂_{s_{t+1}}−M̂_{s_t})−(M_{s_{t+1}}−M_{s_t})||) or explain why the endpoint-only form is intended.
[§4, Table 2] The claim 'without detriment to performance' is contradicted by the reported numbers. For MedNeXt, 'w/o' pretraining gives Dice 94.20, IoU 89.61, while 'Ours' gives 91.39 and 85.57—a 2.81 Dice and 4.04 IoU drop. The paper's own results show that the proposed pretraining hurts downstream accuracy relative to no pretraining. At minimum, this statement must be revised to reflect the actual comparison, or the authors should provide statistical significance testing and a discussion of why the drop occurs.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2] The phrase 'the group of subdomains with smaller cosine similarity is considered as U_dst' is unclear; please define exactly how U_dst is resampled and how the loss selects positive/negative pairs.
[§2.3] The loss L_GMP uses a relative error with ε in the denominator; please state the numerical value of ε and whether gradients are clipped to avoid division by near-zero gaps.
[§3.2] Please clarify what α is for each dataset and how the foreground filtering threshold is set; these are described only qualitatively.
[Table 2] No error bars or repeated-run statistics are reported. Given the small performance differences between methods, error bars are essential to support comparative claims.
[§1] The distinction from GMIM is stated but not elaborated; please provide a more concrete comparison of task formulations and supervision requirements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the self-supervision targets are external spatial/physical quantities; the RBCS telescoping issue is a correctness flaw, not a circular reduction to model inputs.

full rationale

All three pretext tasks are supervised by external spatial targets rather than by the model's own fitted outputs. CRSC uses physically nearest/farthest sub-volume pairs; GMP uses L2 gaps computed from DICOM spacing; RBCS uses ground-truth central coordinates. No loss reduces to a fitted parameter, no prediction is a renamed fit, and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citation (the reference list shows no overlap with the authors). The one notable issue is in Sec. 2.4: the RBCS cumulative displacement error telescopes, so the loss depends only on the first and last predicted coordinates (with an (alpha-1) factor on the ground-truth displacement), and interior route nodes receive zero gradient. This contradicts the paper's claim of route-level, fine-grained connectivity supervision and undermines the interpretability visualization, but it is an internal mathematical inconsistency rather than circularity: the target is still an external ground-truth coordinate quantity and is not equivalent to the model's inputs or fitted values. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about spatial-coordinate supervision and on unreported hyperparameters, not on any new physical entities or on fitting constants to the target results. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

alpha (number of sampled sub-regions per volume)
Never specified in the paper; controls the number of pairs and paths in CRSC/GMP/RBCS and the O(alpha^2) supervision richness.
Momentum coefficient for momentum-averaged backbone
Chosen by hand and not reported; the stability of the self-supervision depends on it (Section 2.1).
Loss weighting among L_CRSC, L_GMP, L_RBCS
The paper does not state how the three losses are combined or weighted; this affects the learned representation.
Foreground filtering sampling threshold
The paper uses a foreground filtering strategy to reduce empty-area sampling but gives no threshold, affecting patch composition.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Physical proximity of sampled sub-regions implies semantic relatedness, so adjacent patches should have similar latent features and distant patches dissimilar latent features.
Invoked by CRSC in Section 2.2 and by the use of Euclidean distance as a semantic target; if false, the pretext tasks teach an arbitrary geometry.
domain assumption DICOM spacing parameters provide accurate physical distances between voxels, so gap targets for GMP and RBCS are meaningful.
Section 2.3 uses spacing to compute ground-truth physical gaps; inaccurate spacing would corrupt the supervision.
domain assumption A momentum-averaged model provides stable pseudo-features for the self-supervised tasks.
Section 2.1 relies on a momentum backbone to compute features for the non-gradient patches; instability in momentum estimation would destabilize training.
ad hoc to paper The three auxiliary losses can be combined on a shared backbone without explicit task-balancing.
No ablation or weighting scheme is given; the paper's experiments implicitly assume equal or otherwise unspecified combination works.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatial-Aware Self-Supervision for Medical 3D Imaging with Multi-Granularity Observable Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVVZE2GO

@misc{pith2026250905967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatial-Aware Self-Supervision for Medical 3D Imaging with Multi-Granularity Observable Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVVZE2GO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05967}
}

read the original abstract

The application of self-supervised techniques has become increasingly prevalent within medical visualization tasks, primarily due to its capacity to mitigate the data scarcity prevalent in the healthcare sector. The majority of current works are influenced by designs originating in the generic 2D visual domain, which lack the intuitive demonstration of the model's learning process regarding 3D spatial knowledge. Consequently, these methods often fall short in terms of medical interpretability. We propose a method consisting of three sub-tasks to capture the spatially relevant semantics in medical 3D imaging. Their design adheres to observable principles to ensure interpretability, and minimize the performance loss caused thereby as much as possible. By leveraging the enhanced semantic depth offered by the extra dimension in 3D imaging, this approach incorporates multi-granularity spatial relationship modeling to maintain training stability. Experimental findings suggest that our approach is capable of delivering performance that is on par with current methodologies, while facilitating an intuitive understanding of the self-supervised learning process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05967 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visualization of the performance on self-supervision tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Route Connectivity Observation during training. [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

20 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV)

Chen, X., Xie, S., He, K.: An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV). pp. 9640–9649 (October 2021)

work page 2021
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)

Chen, Z., Agarwal, D., Aggarwal, K., Safta, W., Balan, M.M., Brown, K.: Masked image modeling advances 3d medical image analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). pp. 1970–1980 (January 2023)

work page 1970
[3]

D’Antonoli, T.A., Berger, L.K., Indrakanti, A.K., Vishwanathan, N., Weiß, J., Jung, M., Berkarda, Z., Rau, A., Reisert, M., Küstner, T., Walter, A., Merkle, E.M., Segeroth, M., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., Wasserthal, J.: Totalsegmentator mri: Sequence-independent segmentation of 59 anatomical structures in mr images (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19492

arXiv 2024
[4]

Heller, N., Isensee, F., Trofimova, D., Tejpaul, R., Zhao, Z., Chen, H., Wang, L., Golts, A., Khapun, D., Shats, D., Shoshan, Y., Gilboa-Solomon, F., George, Y., Yang, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Xia, Y., Wu, M., Liu, Z., Walczak, E., McSweeney, S., Vasdev, R., Hornung, C., Solaiman, R., Schoephoerster, J., Abernathy, B., Wu, D., Abdulkadir, S., Byun, B., S...

work page 2023
[5]

(eds.): Fast, Low-resource, and Accurate Organ and Pan-cancer Segmentation in Abdomen CT

Ma, J., Wang, B. (eds.): Fast, Low-resource, and Accurate Organ and Pan-cancer Segmentation in Abdomen CT. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Cham, 1 edn. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58776-4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-58776-4 2024
[6]

https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3100536

Ma, J., Zhang, Y., Gu, S., Zhu, C., Ge, C., Zhang, Y., An, X., Wang, C., Wang, Q., Liu, X., Cao, S., Zhang, Q., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Li, Y., He, J., Yang, X.: Abdomenct-1k:Isabdominalorgansegmentationasolvedproblem?IEEETransac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence44(10), 6695–6714 (Oct 2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3100536

arXiv 2022
[7]

Computers in Biology and Medicine156, 106668 (2023)

Nazir, S., Dickson, D.M., Akram, M.U.: Survey of explainable arti- ficial intelligence techniques for biomedical imaging with deep neu- ral networks. Computers in Biology and Medicine156, 106668 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106668, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482523001336

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

Perera, S., Navard, P., Yilmaz, A.: Segformer3d: an efficient transformer for 3d medical image segmentation. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). pp. 4981–4988 (June 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW63382.2024.00503

arXiv 2024

Show all 20 references

[9]

Computers in Biology and Medicine176, 108547 (2024)

Qi, L., Jiang, Z., Shi, W., Qu, F., Feng, G.: Gmim: Self-supervised pre- training for 3d medical image segmentation with adaptive and hierarchical masked image modeling. Computers in Biology and Medicine176, 108547 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2...

2024
[10]

In: Greenspan, H., Madabhushi, A., Mousavi, P., Salcud- ean, S., Duncan, J., Syeda-Mahmood, T., Taylor, R

Roy, S., Koehler, G., Ulrich, C., Baumgartner, M., Petersen, J., Isensee, F., Jäger, P.F., Maier-Hein, K.H.: Mednext: Transformer-driven scaling of convnets for med- ical image segmentation. In: Greenspan, H., Madabhushi, A., Mousavi, P., Salcud- ean, S., Duncan, J., Syeda-Mah...

2023
[11]

Medical Image Analysis42, 1–13 (2017), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361841517301020

Setio, A.A.A., Traverso, A., de Bel, T., Berens, M.S., van den Bogaard, C., Cerello, P., Chen, H., Dou, Q., Fantacci, M.E., Geurts, B., van der Gugten, R., Heng, P.A., Jansen, B., de Kaste, M.M., Kotov, V., Lin, J.Y.H., Man- ders, J.T., Sóñora-Mengana, A., García-Naranjo, J.C....

2017
[12]

In: Cao, X., Xu, X., Rekik, I., Cui, Z., Ouyang, X

Tian, Y., Pang, G., Liu, Y., Wang, C., Chen, Y., Liu, F., Singh, R., Verjans, J.W., Wang, M., Carneiro, G.: Unsupervised anomaly detection in medical images with a memory-augmented multi-level cross-attentional masked autoencoder. In: Cao, X., Xu, X., Rekik, I., Cui, Z., Ouyan...

2024
[13]

Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering31(3), 1701–1719 (04 2024)

Upadhyay, A.K., Bhandari, A.K.: Advances in deep learning models for re- solving medical image segmentation data scarcity problem: A topical review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering31(3), 1701–1719 (04 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-023-10028-9 10 Zhang, et al

2024 doi
[14]

BMC Med- ical Imaging24(1), 79 (04 2024)

VanBerlo, B., Hoey, J., Wong, A.: A survey of the impact of self-supervised pre- training for diagnostic tasks in medical x-ray, ct, mri, and ultrasound. BMC Med- ical Imaging24(1), 79 (04 2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-024-01253-0

2024 doi
[15]

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

Wu,L.,Zhuang,J.,Chen,H.:Voco:Asimple-yet-effectivevolumecontrastivelearn- ing framework for 3d medical image analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 22873– 22882 (June 2024)

2024
[16]

In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Xie, Z., Zhang, Z., Cao, Y., Lin, Y., Bao, J., Yao, Z., Dai, Q., Hu, H.: Simmim: a simple framework for masked image modeling. In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 9643–9653 (June 2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00943

2022
[17]

IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 28(4), 2115–2125 (April 2024)

Xing, Z., Zhu, L., Yu, L., Xing, Z., Wan, L.: Hybrid masked image modeling for 3d medical image segmentation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 28(4), 2115–2125 (April 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2024.3360239

2024
[18]

In: Wang, L., Dou, Q., Fletcher, P.T., Speidel, S., Li, S

You, C., Zhao, R., Staib, L.H., Duncan, J.S.: Momentum contrastive voxel-wise representation learning for semi-supervised volumetric medical image segmenta- tion. In: Wang, L., Dou, Q., Fletcher, P.T., Speidel, S., Li, S. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted In...

2022
[19]

BioMedical Engi- neering OnLine23(1), 107 (2024)

Zeng, X., Abdullah, N., Sumari, P.: Self-supervised learning framework appli- cation for medical image analysis: a review and summary. BioMedical Engi- neering OnLine23(1), 107 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-024-01299-9, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-024-01299-9

2024 doi
[20]

In: Elkind, E

Zhang, C., Zhang, C., Song, J., Yi, J.S.K., Kweon, I.S.: A survey on masked au- toencoder for visual self-supervised learning. In: Elkind, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23. pp. 6805–6813. Internationa...

2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV)

Chen, X., Xie, S., He, K.: An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV). pp. 9640–9649 (October 2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)

Chen, Z., Agarwal, D., Aggarwal, K., Safta, W., Balan, M.M., Brown, K.: Masked image modeling advances 3d medical image analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). pp. 1970–1980 (January 2023)

work page 1970

[3] [3]

D’Antonoli, T.A., Berger, L.K., Indrakanti, A.K., Vishwanathan, N., Weiß, J., Jung, M., Berkarda, Z., Rau, A., Reisert, M., Küstner, T., Walter, A., Merkle, E.M., Segeroth, M., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., Wasserthal, J.: Totalsegmentator mri: Sequence-independent segmentation of 59 anatomical structures in mr images (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19492

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Heller, N., Isensee, F., Trofimova, D., Tejpaul, R., Zhao, Z., Chen, H., Wang, L., Golts, A., Khapun, D., Shats, D., Shoshan, Y., Gilboa-Solomon, F., George, Y., Yang, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Xia, Y., Wu, M., Liu, Z., Walczak, E., McSweeney, S., Vasdev, R., Hornung, C., Solaiman, R., Schoephoerster, J., Abernathy, B., Wu, D., Abdulkadir, S., Byun, B., S...

work page 2023

[5] [5]

(eds.): Fast, Low-resource, and Accurate Organ and Pan-cancer Segmentation in Abdomen CT

Ma, J., Wang, B. (eds.): Fast, Low-resource, and Accurate Organ and Pan-cancer Segmentation in Abdomen CT. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Cham, 1 edn. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58776-4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-58776-4 2024

[6] [6]

https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3100536

Ma, J., Zhang, Y., Gu, S., Zhu, C., Ge, C., Zhang, Y., An, X., Wang, C., Wang, Q., Liu, X., Cao, S., Zhang, Q., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Li, Y., He, J., Yang, X.: Abdomenct-1k:Isabdominalorgansegmentationasolvedproblem?IEEETransac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence44(10), 6695–6714 (Oct 2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3100536

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Computers in Biology and Medicine156, 106668 (2023)

Nazir, S., Dickson, D.M., Akram, M.U.: Survey of explainable arti- ficial intelligence techniques for biomedical imaging with deep neu- ral networks. Computers in Biology and Medicine156, 106668 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106668, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482523001336

work page arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

Perera, S., Navard, P., Yilmaz, A.: Segformer3d: an efficient transformer for 3d medical image segmentation. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). pp. 4981–4988 (June 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW63382.2024.00503

arXiv 2024