Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

FUSEP: A Multi-Center Benchmark for Diverse Tasks in Early Pregnancy Fetal Ultrasound Screening

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 FUSEP fills a gap: the first public early-pregnancy fetal ultrasound benchmark, with 4,017 images and 45,820 expert boxes across 14 anatomical structures, plus baselines for semi-supervised and domain-adaptation detection.

desk verdict A genuinely new early-pregnancy fetal ultrasound detection benchmark with consistent headline numbers, but the unmeasured annotation reliability and box-format ambiguity make the mAP tables provisional until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04766 v1 pith:MASPXBE3 submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CV cs.AI

Bin Pu , Jiewen Yang , Liwen Wang , Ying Tan , Guannan He , Xingbo Dong , Qika Lin , Jiarong Guo
show 4 more authors
Lixian Yang Zuozhu Liu Shengli Li Kenli Li
This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords fetalultrasoundearlypregnancyscreeningobjectdetectionbenchmarkdatasetsemi-supervisedlearningdomainadaptationcrown-rumplengthnuchaltranslucency
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

This paper claims that early-pregnancy fetal ultrasound currently lacks any publicly available dataset, and that the authors close that gap with FUSEP: 4,017 ultrasound images of the crown-rump length (CRL) and nuchal translucency (NT) views collected from three hospitals, carrying 45,820 expert-drawn bounding boxes around 14 anatomical structures. If the claim is correct, researchers gain a reproducible multi-center testbed on which to train and compare detection models, and clinical applications such as standard-plane recognition, image quality control, and cross-device domain adaptation become addressable with shared data rather than private in-house collections. The paper also contributes standardized evaluation protocols, reporting baseline performance under fully supervised, semi-supervised (5% and 10% labels), unsupervised domain adaptation, and source-free domain adaptation settings. The strongest claim is novelty: to the authors' knowledge, this is the first publicly available dataset and benchmark for early-pregnancy fetal ultrasound screening.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FUSEP dataset itself: 4,017 images with 45,820 box-level annotations of 14 anatomical structures in the CRL and NT views, plus standardized experimental protocols. The defining design is a multi-center, multi-device collection with detailed annotations of structures including the nasal bone, nuchal translucency, maxilla, mandible, diencephalon, rhombencephalon, head, chest, abdomen, genitalia, and others. What carries the argument is the pairing of these diverse annotations with four training regimes (fully supervised, semi-supervised at two label budgets, unsupervised domain adaptation, and source-free unsupervised domain adaptation), which lets the same images be used to measure model behavior under label scarcity and domain shift.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of, say, 200 images from both views with two independent experienced sonographers, compute box-level agreement (for example, an IoU-based matching rate or Cohen's kappa on presence or absence of each structure), and compare the result with the dataset's annotations; if agreement is low, or if the exclusion rate reported in preprocessing was high, the benchmark's ground truth is not reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FUSEP is the first publicly available dataset and benchmark for early-pregnancy fetal ultrasound screening. The dataset consists of two views recommended by the ISUOG guideline (CRL and NT), spans three hospitals with different devices (SAMSUNG, Sonoscape, GE), and contains 45,820 box-level annotations of 14 anatomical structures on 4,017 images. The paper shows that state-of-the-art object detectors (nine fully supervised, six semi-supervised, six unsupervised domain adaptation, four source-free unsupervised domain adaptation) behave measurably differently across hospitals, and that tiny structures such as the nasal bone (occupying only 0.2% to 0.5% of the detection area) are consistently the hardest to detect, which the authors interpret as a signature of the unique difficulty of early-pregnancy ultrasound. They also identify that cross-center performance drops correlate with changes in imaging devices, making the dataset a natural stress test for domain adaptation methods.

Load-bearing premise

The expert annotations are treated as correct, but the paper never measures how often two sonographers agree on a box or how many images were discarded as inconsistent, so the ground truth, and every number built from it, could be unstable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers gain a shared benchmark: any detection model can be trained and evaluated on FUSEP and compared against the reported baselines.
  • Semi-supervised methods can be tested under realistic scarcity: with only 5% or 10% of labels, the dataset measures whether unlabeled data helps early-pregnancy detection.
  • Cross-device domain shifts become quantifiable: because images come from three hospitals using different ultrasound devices, unsupervised and source-free domain adaptation methods can be compared on a controlled, realistic gap.
  • Downstream clinical tasks such as standard view recognition, image quality control, and missing-structure diagnosis become researchable on top of the detection baselines.
  • The documented challenges of extreme scale variation, class imbalance, and feature sparsity set explicit difficulty axes for future methods to report against.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the authors list is adding segmentation masks; if labels are extended to pixel level, automated measurement of crown-rump length and nuchal translucency thickness becomes feasible.
  • The label-quality premise is untested: the paper asserts but does not measure inter-annotator agreement, so the stability of the 45,820 boxes should be verified before treating the benchmark's numbers as gold.
  • Because per-class average precision is reported, practitioners can weight classes by clinical importance (for example, nasal bone absence as a Down-syndrome marker) rather than relying on aggregate mean average precision.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. FUSEP is a new multi-center benchmark for early-pregnancy fetal ultrasound screening, consisting of 4,017 CRL and NT ultrasound images from three hospitals with 45,820 box-level expert annotations of 14 anatomical structures. The paper reports fully supervised, semi-supervised (5% and 10% labels), unsupervised domain adaptation, and source-free domain adaptation object-detection baselines, implemented in MMDetection, and claims to be the first publicly available dataset and benchmark for this specific niche. The headline arithmetic is internally consistent, and the authors provide code, baseline weights, and metadata, plus an appendix with per-class counts and area ratios.

Significance. If the ground-truth quality and evaluation conventions are made explicit and verifiable, FUSEP is a potentially valuable resource for the medical image analysis community. It addresses a genuinely underrepresented setting (early pregnancy, 11–14 weeks) with two guideline-recommended views, multi-center acquisition, and two devices, and it ships reproducible artifacts: training scripts, environment configurations, baseline weights, and structured JSON metadata. The breadth of protocols (supervised, SSL, UDA, SFDA) is a useful service to the community. The explicit failure-mode analysis around extreme scale variation, class imbalance, and feature sparsity is also a strength. The current manuscript, however, does not yet substantiate the label-quality assumptions on which all benchmark numbers rest, and it leaves the exact definition of the detection metric underspecified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] The paper states that 'Any inconsistent annotations were identified and excluded during the preprocessing stage to ensure high-quality labeling,' but it reports no inter-annotator agreement metric, no exclusion count, and no per-structure disagreement statistic. Since the 45,820 boxes are the sole ground truth for every mAP value in Tables 3–6, this unquantified claim is load-bearing. Please report agreement statistics between the two sonographers (e.g., box-level IoU or Cohen's kappa for structure presence), the number of images and boxes excluded for inconsistency, and per-structure agreement. If the exclusion rate was substantial, the published cohort is a filtered subset and the multi-center difficulty estimates are not representative; if disagreements concentrated on small structures such as NB, NTAPS, MDS, or G, then the low APs in Tables 3–6 conflate label noise with detection difficulty.
  2. [§3.2 and §4.2] The annotation format is described as boxes 'with four vertices per structure,' while all baselines are implemented in MMDetection, which consumes axis-aligned boxes. The paper never states whether mAP-50 is computed on the raw quadrilaterals, on their axis-aligned bounding rectangles, or on a rotated-box representation, nor which conversion is applied before evaluation. This ambiguity affects the definition of every metric in Tables 3–6. Please specify the exact evaluation convention, release the conversion/evaluation code, and, if rotated boxes are used, explain how they are reconciled with the axis-aligned detectors that produce the reported numbers.
  3. [Abstract and §1] The claim that FUSEP is 'the first publicly available dataset and benchmark for fetal early pregnancy ultrasound screening' is a central novelty claim, but the comparison in Table 1 covers only three adult-echocardiography datasets and does not systematically consider public fetal ultrasound datasets from the same or adjacent settings, such as SonoNet standard planes [2], FPUS23 [65], PSFHS [9], and the fetal head biometry dataset [1]. Although those may not be exact early-pregnancy multi-structure detection benchmarks, the 'first' claim should be supported by a broader, dated comparison table or by a clear scope definition that states why these works fall outside the claimed novelty. As written, the claim is stronger than the evidence provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2] The sentence describing mAP-50 as 'the detection results with different thresholds of Intersection over Union (IoU) in the Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS)' is inaccurate; mAP-50 is mean average precision at a single IoU threshold of 0.5. Please correct the description.
  2. [§4.2] The training-set description is ambiguous: 'we use all training sets (612 images of CRL and NT view in Hospital-1, 590 images of CRL view and 607 images of NT view in Hospital-2...)' does not clearly state whether Hospital 1 contributes 612 images per view or 612 total, and no train/validation/test split sizes are given. Please list the exact split sizes for each view and hospital.
  3. [§3.1] The case-to-image counts (766/759/989 cases vs 1,532/1,496/989 images) imply that Hospitals 1 and 2 contribute roughly two images per case while Hospital 3 contributes one; the text should state whether a case can yield multiple retained images and why the ratio differs across hospitals.
  4. [Table 2 and Figure A2] Several anatomical structure names are inconsistently capitalized or misspelled, for example 'RhomBencePhalonRBP' and 'Dience Phalon DP'; please standardize these to the medical terms used in the text and the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FUSEP's central claim is a data-resource contribution validated against external expert annotations and standard detection benchmarks, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the introduction of a new multi-center fetal ultrasound dataset with expert box-level annotations and standardized baselines. This is an empirical resource claim, not a derived result: the ground truth is human expert annotation collected independently of any model output, and the baselines are evaluated with standard mAP metrics against that external ground truth. No equation in the paper is fitted to the paper's own conclusions, and no prediction is computed from a parameter that was itself fit to the claimed result. The inclusion of several baselines from the authors' prior work (e.g., M3-UDA, ToMo-UDA, ATSS, Semi-akmm) is a normal benchmarking practice: these methods are published elsewhere and are evaluated on the new dataset rather than being used to define its validity. The 'first publicly available dataset' claim is supported by a comparison to external public datasets (CardiacUDA, CAMUS, EchoNet) and is a factual knowledge claim, not a circular derivation. The unquantified annotation-consistency statement in Sec. 3.2 and the unspecified IoU computation on four-vertex boxes are validation and reproducibility concerns, but they do not make the benchmark's derivation circular: the labels are not derived from the model outputs, nor are the reported numbers obtained by renaming the annotation process. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of exhibiting a specific reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs.

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

This is a data-resource paper: no fitted parameters and no new physical or conceptual entities. The load-bearing inputs are the expert annotations (45,820 hand-labeled boxes whose reliability is asserted but not quantified) and the clinical-domain assumptions listed above, particularly the normal-only cohort and the choice of CRL/NT views as the benchmark scope.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ISUOG 11-14 week guideline's prioritization of CRL and NT views justifies building the benchmark on these two views alone.
    Sec. 3.1 follows guideline [3] and explicitly plans to expand to additional views in future iterations, acknowledging that a 2-of-20 view scope is a simplifying choice.
  • domain assumption Box-level presence, absence, and location of 14 structures is a sufficient proxy for downstream clinical tasks such as standard plane recognition, quality control, and missing-structure-based diagnosis.
    Sec. 3.3 frames six tasks on top of detection outputs, e.g., absent nasal bone as a Down syndrome marker [7]. The paper does not validate that detection accuracy transfers to diagnostic accuracy.
  • domain assumption A cohort restricted to fetuses with no obvious abnormalities in follow-up is an adequate base for a screening benchmark.
    Sec. 3.1: "All collected cases in our dataset have no obvious abnormalities found in subsequent ultrasound examinations and postnatal follow-ups." The appendix's "non-biased" claim (Sec. A) goes beyond this assumption and is flagged as an overclaim.
  • domain assumption mAP at IoU 0.5 is an adequate evaluation metric even though several structures occupy only 0.2% to 0.5% of image area.
    Sec. 4.2 reports only mAP-50; for structures as small as the nasal bone, an IoU threshold of 0.5 is a lenient localization standard and may overstate clinically usable localization accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FUSEP: A Multi-Center Benchmark for Diverse Tasks in Early Pregnancy Fetal Ultrasound Screening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MASPXBE3

@misc{pith2026260804766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FUSEP: A Multi-Center Benchmark for Diverse Tasks in Early Pregnancy Fetal Ultrasound Screening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MASPXBE3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04766}
}
read the original abstract

A large number of infants with congenital anomalies are born each year globally, especially in areas with underdeveloped medical resources. Currently, fetal ultrasound screening is the most common modality for early pregnancy anatomy detection. This modality can detect anomalies earlier and provide opportune treatment advice. However, the lack of an ultrasound dataset on early fetal gestation has slowed down the development of automated assisted diagnosis. In this work, we present a benchmark dataset for Fetal Ultrasound Screening in Early Pregnancy to facilitate intelligent ultrasound examination and assisted diagnosis called FUSEP. Our dataset consists of two ultrasound views recommended by the international guideline, i.e., Crown-rump Length (CRL) and Nuchal Translucency (NT) views in three hospitals, totaling 4,017 ultrasound images, with 45,820 box-level expert-level annotations. Our dataset and baseline present the following three contributions: 1) Our medical experts annotated a total of 14 key anatomical structures in two views using a box-level format; 2) Our data is collected extensively from different sonographers, devices, scanning angles, hospitals, etc; 3) We report the performance of the semi-supervised learning, fully supervised learning, unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA), and source-free UDA in ultrasound images multi-object detection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first publicly available dataset and benchmark for fetal early pregnancy ultrasound screening. We believe that FUSEP and benchmark can contribute to the medical community in the development of multiple tasks such as standard plane recognition, quality control on ultrasound images, automated assisted diagnostics in early fetal pregnancy, medical multi-object detection, domain adaptation for object detection, etc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04766 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagnosis process based on the anatomical structure detection and evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CRL and NT views scanning process and annotation procedure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of our datasets FUSEP for the standard and non-standard CRL and NT views. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Christian F Baumgartner, Konstantinos Kamnitsas, Jacqueline Matthew, Tara P Fletcher, Sandra Smith, Lisa M Koch, Bernhard Kainz, and Daniel Rueckert. 2017. SonoNet: real-time detection and localisation of fetal standard scan planes in freehand ultrasound.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging36, 11 (2017), 2204– 2215

    2017

  2. [65]

    Bharath Srinivas Prabakaran, Paul Hamelmann, Erik Ostrowski, and Muhammad Shafique. 2023. FPUS23: An Ultrasound Fetus Phantom Dataset with Deep Neural Network Evaluations for Fetus Orientations, Fetal Planes, and Anatomical Features.arXiv e-prints(2023), arXiv–2303

    work page 2023

  3. [9]

    Gaowen Chen, Jieyun Bai, Zhanhong Ou, Yaosheng Lu, and Huijin Wang. 2024. PSFHS: intrapartum ultrasound image dataset for AI-based segmentation of pubic symphysis and fetal head.Scientific Data11, 1 (2024), 436

    2024

  4. [1]

    Mahmood Alzubaidi, Marco Agus, Michel Makhlouf, Fatima Anver, Khalid Alyafei, and Mowafa Househ. 2023. Large-scale annotation dataset for fetal head biometry in ultrasound images.Data in Brief51 (2023), 109708

    2023

  5. [3]

    CM Bilardo, R Chaoui, JA Hyett, KO Kagan, JN Karim, AT Papageorghiou, LC Poon, LJ Salomon, A Syngelaki, and KH Nicolaides. 2023. ISUOG Practice Guide- lines (updated): performance of 11–14-week ultrasound scan.Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology61, 1 (2023)

    2023

  6. [4]

    Shengcao Cao, Dhiraj Joshi, Liang-Yan Gui, and Yu-Xiong Wang. 2023. Con- trastive mean teacher for domain adaptive object detectors. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 23839–23848

    2023

  7. [5]

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexan- der Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers. arXiv:2005.12872 [cs.CV]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    Gustavo Carneiro, Bogdan Georgescu, Sara Good, and Dorin Comaniciu. 2008. Detection and measurement of fetal anatomies from ultrasound images using a constrained probabilistic boosting tree.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging27, 9 (2008), 1342–1355

    2008

Show all 90 references
  1. [7]

    JS Carvalho, R Axt-Fliedner, R Chaoui, JA Copel, BF Cuneo, D Goff, L Gordin Kopy- lov, K Hecher, W Lee, AJ Moon-Grady, et al. 2023. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): fetal cardiac screening.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol61, 6 (2023), 788– 803

    2023

  2. [8]

    Binbin Chen, Weijie Chen, Shicai Yang, Yunyi Xuan, Jie Song, Di Xie, Shiliang Pu, Mingli Song, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022. Label matching semi-supervised object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 14381–14390

    2022

  3. [10]

    Kai Chen, Jiaqi Wang, Jiangmiao Pang, Yuhang Cao, Yu Xiong, Xiaoxiao Li, Shuyang Sun, Wansen Feng, Ziwei Liu, Jiarui Xu, et al. 2019. MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07155(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Liang Chen, Jianhong Han, and Yupei Wang. 2025. Datr: Unsupervised domain adaptive detection transformer with dataset-level adaptation and prototypical alignment.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing(2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    Arnold Christianson, Christopher P Howson, Bernadette Modell, et al . 2006. March of Dimes Global Report on Birth Defects: The Hidden Toll of Dying and Disabled Children.White Plains.(2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    Qiaosong Chu, Shuyan Li, Guangyi Chen, Kai Li, and Xiu Li. 2023. Adversarial alignment for source free object detection. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 37. 452–460

    2023

  7. [14]

    Yousif Dawood, Marieke FJ Buijtendijk, Harsha Shah, Johannes A Smit, Karl Jacobs, Jaco Hagoort, Roelof-Jan Oostra, Tom Bourne, Maurice JB van den Hoff, and Bernadette S de Bakker. 2022. Imaging fetal anatomy. InSeminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, Vol. 131. Elsevier, 78–92

    2022

  8. [15]

    Yinhui Deng, Yuanyuan Wang, Ping Chen, and Jinhua Yu. 2012. A hierarchical model for automatic nuchal translucency detection from ultrasound images. Computers in Biology and Medicine42, 6 (2012), 706–713

    2012

  9. [16]

    Jinbao Dong, Shengfeng Liu, Yimei Liao, Huaxuan Wen, Baiying Lei, Shengli Li, and Tianfu Wang. 2019. A generic quality control framework for fetal ultrasound cardiac four-chamber planes.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 24, 4 (2019), 931–942

    2019

  10. [17]

    Lior Drukker, Harshita Sharma, Richard Droste, Mohammad Alsharid, Pierre Chatelain, J Alison Noble, and Aris T Papageorghiou. 2021. Transforming obstet- ric ultrasound into data science using eye tracking, voice recording, transducer motion and ultrasound video.Scientific Repo...

    2021

  11. [18]

    L Drukker, H Sharma, JN Karim, R Droste, JA Noble, and AT Papageorghiou

  12. [19]

    Maria Chiara Fiorentino, Francesca Pia Villani, Mariachiara Di Cosmo, Emanuele Frontoni, and Sara Moccia. 2023. A review on deep-learning algorithms for fetal ultrasound-image analysis.Medical Image Analysis83 (2023), 102629

    2023

  13. [20]

    Zheng Ge, Songtao Liu, Feng Wang, Zeming Li, and Jian Sun. 2021. YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08430(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 1440–1448

    2015

  15. [22]

    Xiuquan Hou, Meiqin Liu, Senlin Zhang, Ping Wei, Badong Chen, and Xuguang Lan. 2024. Relation detr: Exploring explicit position relation prior for object detection. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 89–105

    2024

  16. [23]

    2006.Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation

    Kenneth Lyons Jones and David Marshall Smith. 2006.Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation. Elsevier

    2006

  17. [24]

    J Karim, D Di Mascio, N Roberts, AT Papageorghiou, ACCEPTS study, Jehan N Karim, Helen E Campbell, Pranav Pandya, Edward Wilson, Zarko Alfirevic, et al

  18. [25]

    Sarah Leclerc, Erik Smistad, Joao Pedrosa, Andreas Østvik, Frederic Cervenansky, Florian Espinosa, Torvald Espeland, Erik Andreas Rye Berg, Pierre-Marc Jodoin, Thomas Grenier, et al. 2019. Deep learning for segmentation using an open large- scale dataset in 2D echocardiography...

    2019

  19. [26]

    Liunian Harold Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai- Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded Language-Image Pre-training. arXiv:2112.03857 [cs.CV]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Wuyang Li, Xinyu Liu, and Yixuan Yuan. 2022. Sigma: Semantic-complete graph matching for domain adaptive object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 5291–5300

    2022

  21. [28]

    Wuyang Li, Xinyu Liu, and Yixuan Yuan. 2023. Sigma++: Improved semantic- complete graph matching for domain adaptive object detection.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 7 (2023), 9022–9040

    2023

  22. [29]

    Yanghao Li, Hanzi Mao, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. 2022. Exploring plain vision transformer backbones for object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16527 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Yu-Jhe Li, Xiaoliang Dai, Chih-Yao Ma, Yen-Cheng Liu, Kan Chen, Bichen Wu, Zijian He, Kris Kitani, and Peter Vajda. 2022. Cross-domain adaptive teacher for object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 7581–7590

    2022

  24. [31]

    Yimei Liao, Huaxuan Wen, Shuyuan Ouyang, Ying Yuan, Jingru Bi, Yong Guan, Qian Fu, Xia Yang, Wenjia Guo, Yi Huang, et al. 2021. Routine first-trimester ultrasound screening using a standardized anatomical protocol.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology224, 4 (2021), 396–e1

    2021

  25. [32]

    Qi Lin, Yuli Zhou, Siyuan Shi, Yujuan Zhang, Shaoli Yin, Xuye Liu, Qihui Peng, Shaoting Huang, Yitao Jiang, Chen Cui, et al . 2022. How much can AI see in early pregnancy: A multi-center study of fetus head characterization in week 10–14 in ultrasound using deep learning.Compu...

    2022

  26. [33]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2980–2988

    2017

  27. [34]

    Zehui Lin, Shengli Li, Dong Ni, Yimei Liao, Huaxuan Wen, Jie Du, Siping Chen, Tianfu Wang, and Baiying Lei. 2019. Multi-task learning for quality assessment of fetal head ultrasound images.Medical Image Analysis58 (2019), 101548

    2019

  28. [35]

    Shilong Liu, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Xiao Yang, Xianbiao Qi, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. 2022. DAB-DETR: Dynamic Anchor Boxes are Better Queries for DETR. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. https:// openreview.net/forum?id=oMI9PjOb9Jl

    2022

  29. [36]

    Xinyu Liu, Wuyang Li, and Yixuan Yuan. 2023. Decoupled Unbiased Teacher for Source-Free Domain Adaptive Medical Object Detection.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems(2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Xinyu Liu and Yixuan Yuan. 2022. A source-free domain adaptive polyp detection framework with style diversification flow.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41, 7 (2022), 1897–1908

    2022

  31. [38]

    Yen-Cheng Liu, Chih-Yao Ma, and Zsolt Kira. 2022. Unbiased teacher v2: Semi- supervised object detection for anchor-free and anchor-based detectors. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9819–9828

    2022

  32. [39]

    Pádraig Looney, Yi Yin, Sally L Collins, Kypros H Nicolaides, Walter Plasencia, Malid Molloholli, Stavros Natsis, and Gordon N Stevenson. 2021. Fully auto- mated 3-D ultrasound segmentation of the placenta, amniotic fluid, and fetus for early pregnancy assessment.IEEE Transact...

    2021

  33. [40]

    Depu Meng, Xiaokang Chen, Zejia Fan, Gang Zeng, Houqiang Li, Yuhui Yuan, Lei Sun, and Jingdong Wang. 2021. Conditional DETR for Fast Training Convergence. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2021

  34. [41]

    GD Michailidis, P Papageorgiou, and DL Economides. 2002. Assessment of fetal anatomy in the first trimester using two-and three-dimensional ultrasound.The British Journal of Radiology75, 891 (2002), 215–219

    2002

  35. [42]

    Tony CW Mok and Albert Chung. 2020. Fast symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with convolutional neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 4644–4653

    2020

  36. [43]

    Sherry L Murphy, JQ Xu, Kenneth D Kochanek, and Elizabeth Arias. 2018. Mortal- ity in the United States, 2017. NCHS Data Brief, No 328.Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics(2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Ethan H Nguyen, Haichun Yang, Ruining Deng, Yuzhe Lu, Zheyu Zhu, Joseph T Roland, Le Lu, Bennett A Landman, Agnes B Fogo, and Yuankai Huo. 2021. Circle representation for medical object detection.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41, 3 (2021), 746–754. FUSEP: A Multi-Center...

    2021

  38. [45]

    Siqing Nie, Jinhua Yu, Ping Chen, Yuanyuan Wang, and Jian Qiu Zhang. 2017. Automatic detection of standard sagittal plane in the first trimester of pregnancy using 3-D ultrasound data.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology43, 1 (2017), 286–300

    2017

  39. [46]

    David Ouyang, Bryan He, Amirata Ghorbani, Neal Yuan, et al. 2020. Video-based AI for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function.Nature580, 7802 (2020), 252–256

    2020

  40. [47]

    Poojan Oza, Vishwanath A Sindagi, Vibashan Vishnukumar Sharmini, and Vishal M Patel. 2023. Unsupervised domain adaptation of object detectors: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence(2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    Lijuan Pan, Jiayu Wu, Desheng Liang, Jing Yuan, Jue Wang, Yinchen Shen, Junjie Lu, Aihua Xia, Jinchen Li, and Lingqian Wu. 2023. Association analysis between chromosomal abnormalities and fetal ultrasonographic soft markers based on 15,263 fetuses.American Journal of Obstetric...

    2023

  42. [49]

    Bin Pu, Kenli Li, Jianguo Chen, Yuhuan Lu, Qing Zeng, Jiewen Yang, and Shengli Li. 2024. HFSCCD: A Hybrid Neural Network for Fetal Standard Cardiac Cycle Detection in Ultrasound Videos.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  43. [50]

    Bin Pu, Kenli Li, Shengli Li, and Ningbo Zhu. 2021. Automatic fetal ultrasound standard plane recognition based on deep learning and IIoT.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics17, 11 (2021), 7771–7780

    2021

  44. [51]

    Bin Pu, Yuhuan Lu, Jianguo Chen, Shengli Li, Ningbo Zhu, Wei Wei, and Kenli Li. 2022. Mobileunet-fpn: A semantic segmentation model for fetal ultrasound four-chamber segmentation in edge computing environments.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics26, 11 (2022), 5540–5550

    2022

  45. [52]

    Bin Pu, Xingguo Lv, Jiewen Yang, Xingbo Dong, Yiqun Lin, Shengli Li, Kenli Li, and Xiaomeng Li. 2025. Leveraging Anatomical Consistency for Multi-Object Detection in Ultrasound Images via Source-free Unsupervised Domain Adap- tation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Art...

    2025

  46. [53]

    Bin Pu, Xingguo Lv, Jiewen Yang, He Guannan, Xingbo Dong, Yiqun Lin, Li Shengli, Tan Ying, Liu Fei, Ming Chen, et al. 2024. Unsupervised domain adap- tation for anatomical structure detection in ultrasound images. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  47. [54]

    Bin Pu, Liwen Wang, Jiewen Yang, Xingbo Dong, Benteng Ma, Zhuangzhuang Chen, Lei Zhao, Shengli Li, and Kenli Li. 2025. Anatomical Knowledge Mining and Matching for Semi-supervised Medical Multi-structure Detection. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligenc...

    2025

  48. [55]

    Bin Pu, Liwen Wang, Jiewen Yang, Guannan He, Xingbo Dong, Shengli Li, Ying Tan, Ming Chen, Zhe Jin, Kenli Li, et al . 2024. M3-uda: a new benchmark for unsupervised domain adaptive fetal cardiac structure detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision a...

    2024

  49. [56]

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. 2016. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 779–788

    2016

  50. [57]

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems28 (2015)

    2015

  51. [58]

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2016. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks.IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence39, 6 (2016), 1137–1149

    2016

  52. [59]

    Hosuk Ryou, Mohammad Yaqub, Angelo Cavallaro, Aris T Papageorghiou, and J Alison Noble. 2019. Automated 3D ultrasound image analysis for first trimester assessment of fetal health.Physics in Medicine & Biology64, 18 (2019), 185010

    2019

  53. [60]

    LJ Salomon, Z Alfirevic, F Da Silva Costa, RL Deter, F Figueras, Tet al Ghi, P Glanc, A Khalil, W Lee, R Napolitano, et al . 2019. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology53, 6 (2019), 715–723

    2019

  54. [61]

    Giuseppa Sciortino, Emanuela Orlandi, Cesare Valenti, and Domenico Tegolo

  55. [62]

    Giuseppa Sciortino, Domenico Tegolo, and Cesare Valenti. 2017. Automatic detection and measurement of nuchal translucency.Computers in Biology and Medicine82 (2017), 12–20

    2017

  56. [63]

    Tahira Shehzadi, Khurram Azeem Hashmi, Didier Stricker, and Muhammad Ze- shan Afzal. 2024. Sparse semi-DETR: sparse learnable queries for semi-supervised object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 5840–5850

    2024

  57. [64]

    R Sonia and V Shanthi. 2015. Image classification for ultrasound fetal images with increased nuchal translucency during first trimester using SVM classifier. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology9, 2 (2015), 113–121

    2015

  58. [66]

    Peize Sun, Rufeng Zhang, Yi Jiang, Tao Kong, Chenfeng Xu, Wei Zhan, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Lei Li, Zehuan Yuan, Changhu Wang, and Ping Luo. 2020. SparseR- CNN: End-to-End Object Detection with Learnable Proposals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.12450(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Y Sun, L Zhang, D Dong, X Li, J Wang, C Yin, LC Poon, J Tian, and Q Wu

  60. [68]

    Bas HM Van der Velden, Hugo J Kuijf, Kenneth GA Gilhuijs, and Max A Viergever

  61. [69]

    Vibashan VS, Poojan Oza, and Vishal M Patel. 2023. Instance relation graph guided source-free domain adaptive object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 3520–3530

    2023

  62. [70]

    Mark C Walker, Inbal Willner, Olivier X Miguel, Malia SQ Murphy, Darine El- Chaâr, Felipe Moretti, Alysha LJ Dingwall Harvey, Ruth Rennicks White, Kather- ine A Muldoon, André M Carrington, et al. 2022. Using deep-learning in fetal ultrasound analysis for diagnosis of cystic h...

    2022

  63. [71]

    Xinjiang Wang, Xingyi Yang, Shilong Zhang, Yijiang Li, Litong Feng, Shijie Fang, Chengqi Lyu, Kai Chen, and Wayne Zhang. 2023. Consistent-teacher: Towards reducing inconsistent pseudo-targets in semi-supervised object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com...

    2023

  64. [72]

    Zhoubing Xu, Yuankai Huo, JinHyeong Park, Bennett Landman, Andy Milkowski, Sasa Grbic, and Shaohua Zhou. 2018. Less is more: Simultaneous view classifica- tion and landmark detection for abdominal ultrasound images. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–...

    2018

  65. [73]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in deep learning-based medical image analysis.Medical Image Analysis79 (2022), 102470

    2022

  66. [74]

    Xin Yang, Lequan Yu, Shengli Li, Huaxuan Wen, Dandan Luo, Cheng Bian, Jing Qin, Dong Ni, and Pheng-Ann Heng. 2018. Towards automated semantic segmen- tation in prenatal volumetric ultrasound.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38, 1 (2018), 180–193

    2018

  67. [75]

    Zhen Yu, Dong Ni, Siping Chen, Shengli Li, Tianfu Wang, and Baiying Lei. 2016. Fetal facial standard plane recognition via very deep convolutional networks. In 2016 38th annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). IEEE, 627–630

    2016

  68. [76]

    Zhen Yu, Ee-Leng Tan, Dong Ni, Jing Qin, Siping Chen, Shengli Li, Baiying Lei, and Tianfu Wang. 2017. A deep convolutional neural network-based framework for automatic fetal facial standard plane recognition.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics22, 3 (2017), 874–885

    2017

  69. [77]

    Bo Zhang, Han Liu, Hong Luo, and Kejun Li. 2021. Automatic quality assessment for 2D fetal sonographic standard plane based on multitask learning.Medicine 100, 4 (2021), e24427

    2021

  70. [78]

    Jiewen Yang, Xinpeng Ding, Ziyang Zheng, Xiaowei Xu, and Xiaomeng Li. 2023. GraphEcho: Graph-Driven Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Echocardiogram Video Segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 11878–11887

    2023

  71. [79]

    Jiacheng Zhang, Xiangru Lin, Wei Zhang, Kuo Wang, Xiao Tan, Junyu Han, Errui Ding, Jingdong Wang, and Guanbin Li. 2023. Semi-detr: Semi-supervised object detection with detection transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition....

    2023

  72. [80]

    Shilong Zhang, Xinjiang Wang, Jiaqi Wang, Jiangmiao Pang, Chengqi Lyu, Wen- wei Zhang, Ping Luo, and Kai Chen. 2023. Dense Distinct Query for End-to-End Object Detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 7329–7338

    2023

  73. [81]

    Lei Zhao, Kenli Li, Bin Pu, Jianguo Chen, Shengli Li, and Xiangke Liao. 2022. An ultrasound standard plane detection model of fetal head based on multi-task learning and hybrid knowledge graph.Future Generation Computer Systems135 (2022), 234–243

    2022

  74. [82]

    Lei Zhao, Guanghua Tan, Qianghui Wu, Bin Pu, Hongliang Ren, Shengli Li, and Kenli Li. 2024. FARN: Fetal Anatomy Reasoning Network for Detection with Global Context Semantic and Local Topology Relationship.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics(2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M. Ni, and Heung-Yeung Shum. 2022. DINO: DETR with Improved DeNoising Anchor Boxes for End-to-End Object Detection. arXiv:2203.03605 [cs.CV]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2021. Deformable DETR: Deformable Transformers for End-to-End Object Detection. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/ forum?id=gZ9hCDWe6ke

    2021

  77. [85]

    Zhuofan Zong, Guanglu Song, and Yu Liu. 2023. DETRs with Collaborative Hybrid Assignments Training. arXiv:2211.12860 [cs.CV] KDD’26, August 9–13, 2026, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea. Bin Pu et al. CRL of Hospital-1 CRL of Hospital-2 CRL of Hospital-3 NT of Hospital-1 NT of Ho...

    2023 arXiv

  78. [88]

    Xingyi Zhou, Rohit Girdhar, Armand Joulin, Philipp Krähenbühl, and Ishan Misra. 2022. Detecting Twenty-thousand Classes using Image-level Supervision. InECCV

    2022

  79. [2016]

    Wavelet analysis and neural network classifiers to detect mid-sagittal sections for nuchal translucency measurement.Image Analysis and Stereology 35, 2 (2016), 105–115

    2016

  80. [2021]

    Application of an individualized nomogram in first-trimester screening for trisomy 21.Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology58, 1 (2021), 56–66

    2021

  81. [2022]

    Clinical workflow of sonographers performing fetal anomaly ultrasound scans: deep-learning-based analysis.Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology60, 6 (2022), 759–765

    2022

  82. [2024]

    Detection of non-cardiac fetal abnormalities by ultrasound at 11–14 weeks: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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