Semantic Scene Graph for Ultrasound Image Explanation and Scanning Guidance

Dianye Huang; Nassir Navab; Xuesong Li; Yameng Zhang; Zhongliang Jiang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Semantic Scene Graph for Ultrasound Image Explanation and Scanning Guidance

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A predicted scene graph of anatomical triplets is enough for an LLM to explain an ultrasound image and to say which way the probe should move to find missing anatomy.

desk verdict A genuine first application of scene graphs to ultrasound with an honest small-data story, but the scanning-guidance half of the central claim is not actually tested—only an LLM text-generation task is evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19683 v2 pith:53BYJNQM submitted 2025-06-24 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGeess.IV

Xuesong Li , Dianye Huang , Yameng Zhang , Nassir Navab , Zhongliang Jiang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGeess.IV

keywords ultrasoundimageanalysisscenegraphlargelanguagemodelsexplanationscanningguidancepoint-of-carerelationtransformercarotidartery

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 proposes that a single ultrasound image can be reduced to a small semantic scene graph: a set of relation triplets such as "thyroid is contiguous with carotid." It then argues that this graph is sufficient for an LLM to perform two useful jobs for a non-expert: explain what the image shows in plain language, and tell the user which way to move the probe so an absent anatomy comes into view. The system is built for carotid and thyroid neck scans, using a single-stage transformer trained on 262 annotated images and tested on 27 images from different volunteers. The motivation is democratizing ultrasound: a portable device could coach a lay user through a basic scan without a clinician on site and without training a large ultrasound-specific vision-language model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ultrasound scene graph: a set of relation triplets $<\text{entity}_1,\ \text{predicate},\ \text{entity}_2>$ over five anatomies and three predicates, generated by a transformer-based one-stage relation detector that predicts subjects, objects, and predicates in a single pass. This graph carries the argument because everything downstream, from neck-side inference and lateral-movement estimation to the LLM explanation and missing-anatomy guidance, is computed from the triplets rather than from raw pixels or a full clinical report. The graph is deliberately compact and concept-level, which is what lets a small model predict it and lets an LLM reason over it in a resource-constrained portable setting.

What would settle it

Run the trained system on, say, fifty carotid scans from new volunteers acquired with a different ultrasound machine and probe, and measure relation recall against manually annotated triplets. If recall on new acquisitions drops to near chance level, or if the LLM's missing-anatomy guidance names the wrong absent structure in more than a small fraction of cases, the scene-graph pipeline fails at its load-bearing step and the explanation and guidance claims fall with it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a semantic scene graph predicted directly from a 2D ultrasound image, using five anatomical entities and three spatial predicates, provides a sufficient intermediate representation for patient-friendly explanation and probe guidance. The graph is predicted end-to-end by a one-stage relation transformer, so no separate object detector and no large ultrasound-specific vision-language model is required. The same triplets are fed to an LLM as a grounding prompt, together with the inferred side of the neck and the probe's lateral movement direction, letting the LLM answer a user's question about a focus anatomy and identify an anatomy missing from the current view with a recommended movement direction. The authors validate the pipeline on carotid-region images and report that larger-capacity LLMs follow the graph more accurately and produce better summaries and guidance than small quantized models; they also state explicitly that the method is currently validated only on carotid images.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline collapses if the relation transformer, trained on 262 carotid images from five volunteers on one ultrasound machine, does not predict correct scene graphs for new users, different probes, or other anatomies, and the paper only tests 27 images from different volunteers while stating that only carotid images were validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the scene graph is reliably predicted, a portable ultrasound device can explain a carotid scan to a lay user in plain language without streaming images to a remote expert.
The same predicted graph can drive scanning guidance: the LLM can name an anatomy missing from the current view and say which way to move the probe, supporting more complete self-scans.
Because the representation is a compact graph rather than a full report, the approach avoids training a large ultrasound-specific vision-language model, which matters when annotated ultrasound data are scarce.
The dependence on only a handful of entities and predicates suggests the framework could be adapted to other anatomies by redefining the entity and predicate vocabulary and retraining on a new small dataset.
Even lightweight local LLMs can perform the explanation task with reasonable accuracy, pointing toward on-device deployment in portable ultrasound hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

Editor's inference: if the scene graph is the reason the pipeline works, the same graph could serve as a state representation for robotic ultrasound, directly steering a motorized probe until the missing anatomy triplet appears rather than only telling a human which way to move.
Editor's inference: the paper measures text quality and instruction-following, not whether a non-expert actually completes a more standardized scan; a testable extension would give novices the system and measure scan completion time, number of views, or expert-rated completeness against unassisted scanning.
Editor's inference: the lateral-movement signal derived from consecutive detections suggests a cheap, label-free probe-motion estimate; a natural extension is to feed a full video stream through the same graph predictor to build a temporal scan trajectory and catch drift.
Editor's inference: since only carotid images were validated, the strongest next test is an out-of-domain transfer experiment with a different probe frequency or a different neck region; if the predicate vocabulary transfers poorly, a per-anatomy vocabulary may be necessary.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it really is the first to build a semantic scene graph for ultrasound images, with a sensible entity/predicate taxonomy for carotid and thyroid anatomy, and it shows a clean way to feed that graph to an LLM for plain-language explanation. Second, the paper's title and abstract promise "scanning guidance," but that half of the system is never validated. Section 2 says probe lateral movement is obtained by comparing two consecutive detections; Section 3 never describes how that works or evaluates it on any consecutive-frame data. Task II only measures whether an LLM can turn a supplied scene graph plus a supplied, unvalidated lateral-movement label into text matching GPT-4o-generated references. The stress-test note is right: this is an internal validity gap, not just an out-of-distribution generalization issue. If the lateral-movement estimate is wrong, the guidance collapses even with perfect scene graphs.

What the paper does well: the motivation is clear, the SG prediction evaluation uses standard metrics (mAP, Recall@K, mR@K), the choice of RelTR as a single-stage method is reasonable, and the authors are honest that the dataset is small and carotid-only. The lightweight-versus-large LLM comparison is useful and gives a practical read on what might run on a portable device. The custom annotation tool and the explicit discussion of why data augmentation is hard for SG prediction are also good signs of careful thinking.

Where it is soft: the 27-image test set is very small, there is no baseline isolating whether the SG representation adds value over, say, just feeding object detections to the LLM, and the subjective Accuracy score has no inter-rater reliability reported. None of these are fatal for a proof-of-concept, but they matter because the headline claims are about democratizing ultrasound for non-experts, and no non-expert user study was run. The paper's own discussion acknowledges the carotid-only limitation, which I take as good faith, but it does not address the missing guidance-loop validation.

The citation pattern is fine—the authors lean on their own prior robotic ultrasound work, but that is standard in a methods continuity sense and not a problem here. There is no fitted-constant-as-prediction circularity; the SG predictions are checked against manually annotated ground truth and the LLM outputs against verified references.

Who is this for? Researchers working on point-of-care ultrasound, image-guided self-learning, or scene-graph applications in medical imaging. They will get a clear, honest proof of concept and a concrete taxonomy they can build on. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push hard on the guidance claim: either remove it from the scope or run a real probe-motion experiment. I would accept it for peer review with a clear expectation of major revision, and I would probably cite the taxonomy even while being explicit that the guidance part is unvalidated.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scene-graph-based framework for ultrasound image understanding and scanning guidance. A RelTR transformer predicts triplets of the form <entity-predicate-entity> for five carotid anatomies, and the resulting triplets, along with lateral side and lateral movement information, are fed to an LLM to generate image explanations (Task I) and probe motion instructions (Task II). Experiments on a 289-image dataset evaluate scene graph prediction with standard detection and recall metrics, and LLM outputs are scored with subjective accuracy, METEOR, and ROUGE-L against GPT-4o-derived references.

Significance. If the framework works as claimed, it could make ultrasound interpretation and basic probe navigation accessible to non-expert users in point-of-care settings. The paper is among the first to apply semantic scene graphs to ultrasound, and using a single-stage transformer avoids an explicit object detection step. The scene graph predictor is evaluated with standard metrics and an ablation over encoder-decoder layer counts, and the LLM comparison spans several open and closed models. However, the experiments do not currently demonstrate that the scene graph adds value beyond the LLM itself, and the scanning-guidance half of the central claim is not validated in a closed loop.

major comments (4)

[Section 2 (US Scanning Guidance) and Section 3.3 (Task II)] The lateral movement signal is load-bearing for the central scanning-guidance claim, but it is never defined or evaluated. The paper states only that lateral movement is obtained 'by comparing two consecutive detections of the target anatomy,' and no consecutive-frame dataset, algorithm description, or validation appears in Section 3. The 27 test images are described as a static image set, and Table 2 scores LLM-generated text rather than probe motion. As a result, the experiments do not show that a user can actually move the probe to reveal a missing anatomy, even if the scene graph predictions were perfect.
[Section 3.3, Table 2] No baseline or ablation isolates the contribution of the scene graph. All LLM conditions appear to receive the same SG-derived grounding prompt, and there is no condition without the scene graph (for example, raw image captioning, object-list-only prompts, or a direct vision-language model). Without such a comparison, the claim that the SG representation is what enables explanation and guidance is not supported.
[Section 3.3, Evaluation Metrics and Table 2] The subjective 'Acc' score is reported to varying precision but without any definition of the rubric, the number of third-party experts, their clinical or ultrasound background, or inter-rater agreement (for example, Cohen's kappa). The reference texts were generated using GPT-4o and 'followed by manual verification,' but the verification protocol is not described. These omissions make the headline accuracies, including the 1.000 scores for Gemma 2 and Grok 3 in Task I, difficult to interpret.
[Section 3.1 and Discussion] The test set consists of 27 images from a single ultrasound machine and probe, and the Discussion explicitly states that the method is only validated on carotid images. This is an honest limitation, but the abstract and introduction frame the method as a general step toward 'democratizing ultrasound' beyond the carotid region. The paper should either temper the general claim or provide evidence across additional anatomies and devices; as written, the framing overstates the external validity.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'to explain image content to ordinary and provide guidance' should read 'to ordinary users' or 'to non-experts'; similar grammatical issues appear elsewhere, for example 'for ordinaries' in the abstract.
[Section 2 and Section 3] There are several typos and formatting issues, including 'tirplets' and 'thetirplets' in Section 2, and 'T able' in the Table 1 caption; these should be corrected.
[Section 2] The grounding prompt structure is only described verbally; providing the actual prompt template or a precise pseudo-code description would improve reproducibility, since Task II depends on the exact wording and ordering of the grounding information.
[Section 3.2] The identification of the left or right lateral side is mentioned as an output of the system but is never evaluated; the paper should explicitly state that lateral-side accuracy is not measured or include an evaluation of this component.
[Table 2] The precision of the Acc values is inconsistent across entries, ranging from 0.265 to 1.000; the authors should specify the intended number of decimal places or the number of trials on which each accuracy is based.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scene-graph predictions, LLM explanations, and guidance texts are all evaluated against externally grounded references rather than being defined in terms of the outputs they are claimed to predict.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: ultrasound images -> RelTR scene-graph prediction -> triplets -> LLM explanation/guidance. Each link is checked against an external ground truth. Scene-graph and object detection are scored with mAP and Recall@K against manually annotated triplets (Section 3.2, Table 1), so the SG prediction is not a fitted quantity renamed as a result. LLM outputs for Task I and Task II are scored with Acc, METEOR, and ROUGEL against reference texts that were generated by GPT-4o and then manually verified (Section 3.3), an independent benchmark rather than a self-referential target. No fitted parameter is later reported as a prediction, and no 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the chosen architecture. The lateral-movement signal described in Section 2 ('by comparing two consecutive detections of the target anatomy') is not evaluated in a closed-loop probe-motion experiment, and Task II only scores LLM text; this is a missing-validation or internal-validity concern, but it is not circularity because the guidance text is not used as its own evidence. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 5, 15, 16, 17, 33) appear only as background on ultrasound imaging and robotic guidance and are not load-bearing for the SG-LLM derivation. The Discussion limitation stating that the method is 'only validated on carotid images' is an honest scope statement, not an admission of circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation is self-contained relative to the quoted evidence, and the most defensible score is 0.

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

The central claim depends on one data-dependent model selection choice and several domain assumptions about anatomy, generalization, motion inference, and reference text quality. No new physical entities or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Transformer encoder and decoder layer count = 4
Selected by comparing 3, 4, and 5 layer configurations on the collected carotid dataset (Table 1); the 4-layer model is the default and all downstream results depend on this model selection.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The five-entity, three-predicate taxonomy is sufficient to represent clinically meaningful relationships in carotid ultrasound images.
Introduced in Section 2 without evidence that these categories cover the anatomy needed for explanation or guidance; if important structures are missing, the downstream LLM cannot reason about them.
domain assumption RelTR trained on 262 images from five volunteers generalizes to unseen volunteers and to both left and right neck sides.
Section 3.1 reports training and test splits from different volunteers; the entire evaluation rests on this generalization with only 27 test images.
domain assumption Lateral probe movement can be recovered from two consecutive detections of the target anatomy.
Section 2 states this without quantitative evaluation; Task II guidance depends on this motion cue.
domain assumption GPT-4o-generated reference texts, after manual verification, are a valid ground truth for LLM outputs.
Section 3.3 uses these references for METEOR and ROUGE-L; errors or bias in references would propagate to all model scores.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semantic Scene Graph for Ultrasound Image Explanation and Scanning Guidance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53BYJNQM

@misc{pith2026250619683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semantic Scene Graph for Ultrasound Image Explanation and Scanning Guidance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53BYJNQM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19683}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding medical ultrasound imaging remains a long-standing challenge due to significant visual variability caused by differences in imaging and acquisition parameters. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have been used to automatically generate terminology-rich summaries orientated to clinicians with sufficient physiological knowledge. Nevertheless, the increasing demand for improved ultrasound interpretability and basic scanning guidance among non-expert users, e.g., in point-of-care settings, has not yet been explored. In this study, we first introduce the scene graph (SG) for ultrasound images to explain image content to ordinary and provide guidance for ultrasound scanning. The ultrasound SG is first computed using a transformer-based one-stage method, eliminating the need for explicit object detection. To generate a graspable image explanation for ordinary, the user query is then used to further refine the abstract SG representation through LLMs. Additionally, the predicted SG is explored for its potential in guiding ultrasound scanning toward missing anatomies within the current imaging view, assisting ordinary users in achieving more standardized and complete anatomical exploration. The effectiveness of this SG-based image explanation and scanning guidance has been validated on images from the left and right neck regions, including the carotid and thyroid, across five volunteers. The results demonstrate the potential of the method to maximally democratize ultrasound by enhancing its interpretability and usability for ordinaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19683 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An overview of the proposed framework. 2 Methodology In this section, we first introduce the process of SG prediction for US images acquired from the carotid artery scan. Then, we provide insights into how the predicted SG can be integrated into an LLM to facilitate US image understanding tasks, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An example of US image summarization generated by different LLMs in Task I, with key medical terms highlighted for clarity and comparison. Text highlighted with a gray background indicates areas containing significant errors. 4 Discussion and Conclusion This study introduces semantic scene graphs for ultrasound images to provide intuitive image explanations and effective scanning guidance for individuals with limit… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

UltraAD: Fine-Grained Ultrasound Anomaly Classification via Few-Shot CLIP Adaptation
cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A few-shot CLIP adaptation method jointly performs ultrasound lesion localization and fine-grained benign/malignant classification, validated across three breast ultrasound datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F.L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al.: Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[2]

The Annals of Family Medicine 17(1), 61–69 (2019)

Andersen, C.A., Holden, S., Vela, J., Rathleff, M.S., Jensen, M.B.: Point-of-care ultrasound in general practice: a systematic review. The Annals of Family Medicine 17(1), 61–69 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 (2023)

Bai, J., Bai, S., Chu, Y., Cui, Z., Dang, K., Deng, X., Fan, Y., Ge, W., Han, Y., Huang, F., et al.: Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[4]

In: Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summa- rization

Banerjee, S., Lavie, A.: Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with im- proved correlation with human judgments. In: Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summa- rization. pp. 65–72 (2005)

2005
[5]

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems7 (2024)

Bi, Y., Jiang, Z., Duelmer, F., Huang, D., Navab, N.: Machine learning in robotic ultrasound imaging: Challenges and perspectives. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems7 (2024)

2024
[6]

In: CVPR

Chen, T., Yu, W., Chen, R., Lin, L.: Knowledge-embedded routing network for scene graph generation. In: CVPR. pp. 6163–6171 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence 45(9), 11169–11183 (2023)

Cong, Y., Yang, M.Y., Rosenhahn, B.: Reltr: Relation transformer for scene graph generation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence 45(9), 11169–11183 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

In: CVPR

Dhamo,H.,Farshad,A.,Laina,I.,Navab,N.,Hager,G.D.,Tombari,F.,Rupprecht, C.: Semantic image manipulation using scene graphs. In: CVPR. pp. 5213–5222 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 33 references

[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P., Bi, X., et al.: Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[10]

In: MICCAI

Guo, X., Men, Q., Noble, J.A.: Mmsummary: Multimodal summary generation for fetal ultrasound video. In: MICCAI. pp. 678–688. Springer (2024)

2024
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03013 (2023)

Huh, J., Park, H.J., Ye, J.C.: Breast ultrasound report generation using langchain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03013 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[12]

In: CVPR

Im, J., Nam, J., Park, N., Lee, H., Park, S.: Egtr: Extracting graph from trans- former for scene graph generation. In: CVPR. pp. 24229–24238 (2024)

2024
[13]

In: MICCAI

Islam, M., Seenivasan, L., Ming, L.C., Ren, H.: Learning and reasoning with the graph structure representation in robotic surgery. In: MICCAI. pp. 627–636. Springer (2020)

2020
[14]

In: ECCV

J, Y., Lu, J., Lee, S., Batra, D., Parikh, D.: Graph r-cnn for scene graph generation. In: ECCV. pp. 670–685 (2018)

2018
[15]

The International Journal of Robotics Research43(7), 981–1002 (2024)

Jiang, Z., Bi, Y., Zhou, M., Hu, Y., Burke, M., Navab, N.: Intelligent robotic sono- grapher: Mutual information-based disentangled reward learning from few demon- strations. The International Journal of Robotics Research43(7), 981–1002 (2024)

2024
[16]

Medical image analysis89, 102878 (2023)

Jiang, Z., Salcudean, S.E., Navab, N.: Robotic ultrasound imaging: State-of-the-art and future perspectives. Medical image analysis89, 102878 (2023)

2023
[17]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

Li, J., Su, T., Zhao, B., Lv, F., Wang, Q., Navab, N., Hu, Y., Jiang, Z.: Ultra- sound report generation with cross-modality feature alignment via unsupervised guidance. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

2024
[18]

In: Text sum- marization branches out

Lin, C.Y.: Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In: Text sum- marization branches out. pp. 74–81 (2004) Semantic Scene Graph for Ultrasound Image 11

2004
[19]

In: Computer vision– ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13

Lin, T., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: Computer vision– ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13. pp. 740–755. ...

2014
[20]

In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14

Lu, C., Krishna, R., Bernstein, M., Fei-Fei, L.: Visual relationship detection with language priors. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14. pp. 852–869. Springer (2016)

2016
[21]

Nature Biomedical Engineering 1(9), 691–696 (2017)

Maier-Hein, L., Vedula, S.S., Speidel, S., Navab, N., Kikinis, R., Park, A., Eisen- mann, M., Feussner, H., Forestier, G., Giannarou, S., et al.: Surgical data science for next-generation interventions. Nature Biomedical Engineering 1(9), 691–696 (2017)

2017
[22]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Men, Q., Teng, C., Drukker, L., Papageorghiou, A.T., Noble, J.A.: Multimodal- guidenet: Gaze-probe bidirectional guidance in obstetric ultrasound scanning. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 94–103. Springer (2022)

2022
[23]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging43(3), 1247–1258 (2023)

Murali, A., Alapatt, D., Mascagni, P., Vardazaryan, A., Garcia, A., Okamoto, N., Mutter, D., Padoy, N.: Latent graph representations for critical view of safety assessment. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging43(3), 1247–1258 (2023)

2023
[24]

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases18(3), e0012033 (2024)

Ockenden, E.S., Frischer, S.R., Cheng, H., Noble, J.A., Chami, G.F.: The role of point-of-care ultrasound in the assessment of schistosomiasis-induced liver fibrosis: A systematic scoping review. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases18(3), e0012033 (2024)

2024
[25]

In: MICCAI

Özsoy, E., Örnek, E.P., Eck, U., Czempiel, T., Tombari, F., Navab, N.: 4d-or: Semantic scene graphs for or domain modeling. In: MICCAI. pp. 475–485. Springer (2022)

2022
[26]

In: MICCAI

Sanner, A.P., Grauhan, N.F., Brockmann, M.A., Othman, A.E., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Voxel scene graph for intracranial hemorrhage. In: MICCAI. pp. 519–529. Springer (2024)

2024
[27]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 (2023)

Team, G., Anil, R., Borgeaud, S., Alayrac, J.B., Yu, J., Soricut, R., Schalkwyk, J., Dai, A.M., Hauth, A., Millican, K., et al.: Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024)

Team, G., Riviere, M., Pathak, S., Sessa, P.G., Hardin, C., Bhupatiraju, S., Hussenot, L., Mesnard, T., Shahriari, B., Ramé, A., et al.: Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[29]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al.: Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[30]

In: MICCAI

Xu, H., Wu, J., Cao, G., Chen, Z., Lei, Z., Liu, H.: Transforming surgical interven- tions with embodied intelligence for ultrasound robotics. In: MICCAI. pp. 703–713. Springer (2024)

2024
[31]

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery19(7), 1409–1417 (2024)

Yuan, K., Kattel, M., Lavanchy, J.L., Navab, N., Srivastav, V., Padoy, N.: Advanc- ing surgical vqa with scene graph knowledge. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery19(7), 1409–1417 (2024)

2024
[32]

In: MICCAI

Zhao, C., Droste, R., Drukker, L., Papageorghiou, A.T., Noble, J.A.: Uspoint: Self- supervised interest point detection and description for ultrasound-probe motion estimation during fine-adjustment standard fetal plane finding. In: MICCAI. pp. 104–114. Springer (2022)

2022
[33]

Zhou, Y., Bi, Y., Tong, W., Wang, W., Navab, N., Jiang, Z.: Ultraad: Fine-grained ultrasound anomaly classification via few-shot clip adaptation (2025),https:// arxiv.org/abs/2506.19694

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F.L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al.: Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

The Annals of Family Medicine 17(1), 61–69 (2019)

Andersen, C.A., Holden, S., Vela, J., Rathleff, M.S., Jensen, M.B.: Point-of-care ultrasound in general practice: a systematic review. The Annals of Family Medicine 17(1), 61–69 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 (2023)

Bai, J., Bai, S., Chu, Y., Cui, Z., Dang, K., Deng, X., Fan, Y., Ge, W., Han, Y., Huang, F., et al.: Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

In: Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summa- rization

Banerjee, S., Lavie, A.: Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with im- proved correlation with human judgments. In: Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summa- rization. pp. 65–72 (2005)

2005

[5] [5]

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems7 (2024)

Bi, Y., Jiang, Z., Duelmer, F., Huang, D., Navab, N.: Machine learning in robotic ultrasound imaging: Challenges and perspectives. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems7 (2024)

2024

[6] [6]

In: CVPR

Chen, T., Yu, W., Chen, R., Lin, L.: Knowledge-embedded routing network for scene graph generation. In: CVPR. pp. 6163–6171 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence 45(9), 11169–11183 (2023)

Cong, Y., Yang, M.Y., Rosenhahn, B.: Reltr: Relation transformer for scene graph generation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence 45(9), 11169–11183 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

In: CVPR

Dhamo,H.,Farshad,A.,Laina,I.,Navab,N.,Hager,G.D.,Tombari,F.,Rupprecht, C.: Semantic image manipulation using scene graphs. In: CVPR. pp. 5213–5222 (2020)

work page 2020