Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 58 references

Robust Cross-Domain Generalization Using Unlabeled Target Data with Source-Domain Supervision

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Unlabeled target ultrasound images enable self-supervised pretraining that lifts cross-device segmentation Dice by over 6% when paired with labeled source data.

desk verdict They report a >6% Dice gain on target POCUS images via MIM+contrastive pretraining on unlabeled target data plus a confidence-aware head, but no ablation shows the pretraining step is what drives it. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.29122 v1 pith:AYXRGCWN submitted 2026-05-27 cs.CV

Yuyue Zhou , Shrimanti Ghosh , Michael (Kai Yue) Xie , Justin JY Kim , Jessica Knight , Steel McDonald , Vincent Man , Jacob L. Jaremko
show 1 more author
Abhilash Hareendranathan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cross-domaingeneralizationself-supervisedlearningultrasoundsegmentationpediatricwristfracturePOCUSdomainadaptationmedicalimagingAI
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 examines generalizing a segmentation model for pediatric wrist fractures in point-of-care ultrasound from one scanner to another without acquiring new labels on the target device. It combines masked image modeling and contrastive learning to pretrain on the unlabeled target images, then fuses the resulting representations with supervised training on the labeled source data through a confidence-aware infusion head. A sympathetic reader would care because dense annotation of medical images is expensive and raises privacy barriers, so a method that improves performance across probes while keeping datasets separate offers a practical route to wider deployment. Results are reported on 318 images drawn from 62 videos acquired with a different portable probe.

What carries the argument

Target-informed self-supervised pretraining with masked image modeling and contrastive learning, together with a confidence-aware infusion head that adaptively integrates source-trained and target-adapted predictions.

What would settle it

Re-running the supervised baseline and the proposed method on the identical set of 318 target images and observing no Dice gain or a reversal of the reported improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The method learns target-domain structural representations through masked image modeling and contrastive learning on unlabeled images, trains a segmentation model under source-domain supervision, and uses a confidence-aware infusion head to adaptively combine predictions, yielding more than 6% Dice improvement on the target domain relative to a supervised baseline while keeping the source and target datasets strictly separate.

Load-bearing premise

Self-supervised pretraining on the unlabeled target images produces structural representations that transfer usefully to the downstream bone segmentation task when combined with source supervision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model trained with dense labels on one probe can be adapted to another probe without requiring any new dense annotations on the target device.
  • Source and target datasets remain strictly separate throughout training, supporting privacy constraints in clinical data sharing.
  • The same pretraining-plus-infusion strategy supplies a concrete framework that extends directly to multi-center studies or federated learning setups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same unlabeled-target pretraining step could be tested on other ultrasound tasks such as nerve or vessel segmentation where device shifts are also common.
  • If the learned representations capture bone geometry reliably, the method might be applied to fracture detection rather than segmentation alone.
  • Extending the approach to additional probe types beyond the two examined here would test whether the reported gain generalizes across a wider range of hardware.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that combining masked image modeling and contrastive self-supervised pretraining on unlabeled target-domain POCUS images (TeleMED probe) with source-supervised training (Philips Lumify probe) and a confidence-aware infusion head plus model ensemble yields >6% Dice improvement on a held-out target set of 318 images from 62 pediatric wrist videos, enabling label-efficient cross-device generalization without target annotations.

Significance. If the empirical result is shown to be driven by the target pretraining rather than the infusion mechanism and is supported by proper controls, the approach would offer a practical privacy-preserving route to domain-robust medical segmentation models. The explicit separation of source and target data and the focus on bony-structure features in ultrasound are strengths that align with real clinical constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: no ablation is reported that removes only the MIM+contrastive pretraining step on the unlabeled target data while retaining the confidence-aware infusion head and ensemble; without this isolation the >6% Dice gain on the 318-image target set cannot be attributed to the learned structural representations as claimed.
  2. [Results] Results section: the abstract and experimental description supply no information on the baseline model architecture, statistical testing (p-values, confidence intervals, or number of runs), data splits, or whether the 318 images constitute a true held-out test set, leaving the central performance claim weakly supported.
minor comments (1)
  1. The term 'confidence-aware infusion head' is introduced without an accompanying equation or architectural diagram reference, which reduces clarity for readers attempting to reproduce the adaptive integration step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on strengthening the attribution of results and experimental details. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: no ablation is reported that removes only the MIM+contrastive pretraining step on the unlabeled target data while retaining the confidence-aware infusion head and ensemble; without this isolation the >6% Dice gain on the 318-image target set cannot be attributed to the learned structural representations as claimed.

    Authors: We agree that a dedicated ablation isolating the MIM+contrastive pretraining (while retaining the confidence-aware infusion head and ensemble) would strengthen the claim that the gain is driven by target-domain structural representations. The current manuscript compares the full proposed method against a supervised baseline without any target pretraining, but does not report the exact requested ablation. We will add this ablation study, reporting Dice scores on the 318-image target set, in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: the abstract and experimental description supply no information on the baseline model architecture, statistical testing (p-values, confidence intervals, or number of runs), data splits, or whether the 318 images constitute a true held-out test set, leaving the central performance claim weakly supported.

    Authors: We acknowledge that these details are insufficiently specified. The baseline is a standard U-Net trained only on labeled source data. The 318 images come from 62 videos that form a strictly held-out target test set (no overlap with source data or any target pretraining). We will revise the experimental section to explicitly state the architecture, confirm the held-out nature of the split, and add statistical testing including p-values, confidence intervals, and results over multiple runs with different random seeds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; empirical result on held-out data

full rationale

The paper reports a measured >6% Dice improvement on 318 held-out target-domain images from a strictly separate TeleMED dataset. The method description (MIM + contrastive pretraining on unlabeled target data, source-supervised training, confidence-aware infusion head, and ensemble) produces predictions that are evaluated externally rather than being equivalent to inputs by definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or steps reduce the reported cross-device performance to a self-referential construction; the outcome remains falsifiable against the external target images.

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

The approach rests on the domain assumption that unlabeled target images contain sufficient structural signal for self-supervised learning to aid segmentation transfer; one new architectural component is introduced without external validation.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Unlabeled target-domain ultrasound images contain structural information that masked image modeling and contrastive learning can extract without segmentation labels
    Invoked as the basis for the target-informed pretraining step described in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • confidence-aware infusion head
    purpose: Adaptively integrate model predictions across domains
    New module introduced to handle domain shift; no independent evidence of its necessity or performance outside this work is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Cross-Domain Generalization Using Unlabeled Target Data with Source-Domain Supervision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYXRGCWN

@misc{pith2026260529122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Cross-Domain Generalization Using Unlabeled Target Data with Source-Domain Supervision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYXRGCWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.29122}
}
read the original abstract

It is often desirable to generalize medical imaging AI models trained with dense annotations to data acquired from different ultrasound scanners or clinical sites; however, retraining these models with new annotations is often difficult and costly. We examine this challenge in pediatric wrist fracture assessment using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), where fractures are common and can be effectively triaged via ultrasound. AI has shown radiologist-level performance for fracture detection, often aided by high-quality bony structure segmentation. However, due to significant domain shifts, models perform poorly on data from other centers or probes, and obtaining segmentation labels across devices is impractical due to manual annotation effort and data privacy concerns. To address this, we propose a target-informed self-supervised pretraining and model-ensemble strategy. Specifically, our approach combines masked image modeling (MIM) and contrastive learning to learn target-domain structural representations without labels, and introduces a confidence-aware infusion head to adaptively integrate predictions. The source dataset, collected with a Philips Lumify probe, contained dense labels, while the target dataset, acquired with a TeleMED portable probe, was unlabeled. The datasets were kept strictly separate throughout the entire process. Our method used labeled source data for supervised training and leveraged target-domain pretraining to improve generalization. On 318 images from 62 pediatric POCUS videos, this approach significantly improved cross-device performance, achieving over 6% Dice improvement on the target domain versus the baseline. These results demonstrate a label-efficient and privacy-preserving approach for cross-device-robust ultrasound AI, offering a framework that can be extended to multi-center studies or federated learning setups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wrist ultrasound images acquired using 3 different probes. a: POCUS TeleMED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model architecture with two branches and a confidence-aware infusion head for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The model was pretrained on a single NVIDIA L40S GPU with a batch size of 128. Optimization was performed using the AdamW optimizer with a learning rate of 0.0005 and a weight decay of 0.05 for 1200 epochs after hyperparameter tuning. The TransUNet was randomly initialized without using any pretrained weights. We observed consistent performance trends across different runs. MIM-TransUNet Finetuning After pretraining… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the generative branch. Pretraining phase: Target domain training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the contrastive branch. Pretraining phase: Each target-domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of model predictions on the target-domain test set. GT: ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of predictions from the generative (SimMIM) and contrastive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ghosh, B

    S. Ghosh, B. Felfeliyan, Y. Zhou, J. Knight, N. Akhlaq, J. Küpper, A. R. Hareendranathan, J. L. Jaremko, Ultrasound for automated classifica- tion of full-thickness rotator cuff tendon tears using deep learning, in: 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  2. [2]

    Ghosh, B

    S. Ghosh, B. Felfeliyan, Y. Zhou, S. Liu, J. Knight, N. Akhlaq, J. Küpper, A. R. Hareendranathan, J. Jaremko, Automated detection of shoulder rotator cuff tendon tears from ultrasound images by cnn- autoencoder, in: 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  3. [3]

    Y. Zhou, A. Rakkunedeth, C. Keen, J. Knight, J. L. Jaremko, Wrist ultrasound segmentation by deep learning, in: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Springer, 2022, pp. 230–237

    2022

  4. [4]

    S. J. Pan, Q. Yang, A survey on transfer learning, IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering 22 (10) (2009) 1345–1359

    2009

  5. [5]

    Torralba, A

    A. Torralba, A. A. Efros, Unbiased look at dataset bias, in: CVPR 2011, IEEE, 2011, pp. 1521–1528

    2011

  6. [6]

    S. B. David, T. Lu, T. Luu, D. Pál, Impossibility theorems for domain adaptation, in: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference onArtificialIntelligenceandStatistics, JMLRWorkshopandConference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 129–136

    2010

  7. [7]

    H. Guan, M. Liu, Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a sur- vey, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 69 (3) (2021) 1173– 1185

    2021

  8. [8]

    Huang, J

    L. Huang, J. Zhou, J. Jiao, S. Zhou, C. Chang, Y. Wang, Y. Guo, Stan- dardization of ultrasound images across various centers: M2o-diffgan 31 bridging the gaps among unpaired multi-domain ultrasound images, Medical Image Analysis 95 (2024) 103187

    2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    D. Wu, D. Smith, B. VanBerlo, A. Roshankar, H. Lee, B. Li, F. Ali, M. Rahman, J. Basmaji, J. Tschirhart, et al., Improving the general- izability and performance of an ultrasound deep learning model using limited multicenter data for lung sliding artifact identification, Diagn...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Brudvik, L

    C. Brudvik, L. M. Hove, Childhood fractures in bergen, norway: identi- fying high-risk groups and activities, Journal of pediatric orthopaedics 23 (5) (2003) 629–634

    2003

  3. [11]

    E. M. Hedström, O. Svensson, U. Bergström, P. Michno, Epidemiol- ogy of fractures in children and adolescents: Increased incidence over the past decade: a population-based study from northern sweden, Acta orthopaedica 81 (1) (2010) 148–153

    2010

  4. [12]

    C. Zhu, X. Wang, M. Liu, X. Liu, J. Chen, G. Liu, G. Ji, Non-surgical vs. surgical treatment of distal radius fractures: a meta-analysis of ran- domized controlled trials, BMC surgery 24 (1) (2024) 205

    2024

  5. [13]

    H. C. Bäcker, C. H. Wu, R. J. Strauch, Systematic review of diagnosis of clinically suspected scaphoid fractures, Journal of wrist surgery 9 (01) (2020) 081–089

    2020

  6. [14]

    URLhttps://www.cihi.ca/en/nacrs-emergency-department-visits-and-lengths-of-stay

    Canadian Institute for Health Information, Nacrs emergency depart- ment visits and lengths of stay, accessed: February 3, 2026 (2024). URLhttps://www.cihi.ca/en/nacrs-emergency-department-visits-and-lengths-of-stay

    2026

  7. [15]

    Slaar, M

    A. Slaar, M. M. Walenkamp, A. Bentohami, M. Maas, R. R. van Rijn, E. W. Steyerberg, L. C. Jager, N. L. Sosef, R. van Velde, J. M. Ultee, et al., A clinical decision rule for the use of plain radiography in children after acute wrist injury: development and external validation ...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Knight, Y

    J. Knight, Y. Zhou, C. Keen, A. R. Hareendranathan, F. Alves-Pereira, S. Ghasseminia, S. Wichuk, A. Brilz, D. Kirschner, J. Jaremko, 2d/3d ultrasound diagnosis of pediatric distal radius fractures by human read- ers vs artificial intelligence, Scientific Reports 13 (1) (2023) ...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Y. Zhou, J. Knight, F. Alves-Pereira, C. Keen, A. R. Hareendranathan, J. L. Jaremko, Wrist and elbow fracture detection and segmentation by artificial intelligence using point-of-care ultrasound, Journal of Ultra- sound (2025) 1–9

    2025

  10. [18]

    L. B. Chartier, L. Bosco, L. Lapointe-Shaw, J. Chenkin, Use of point-of- care ultrasound in long bone fractures: a systematic review and meta- analysis, Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 19 (2) (2017) 131– 142

    2017

  11. [19]

    Pinto-Coelho, How artificial intelligence is shaping medical imaging technology: a survey of innovations and applications, Bioengineering 10 (12) (2023) 1435

    L. Pinto-Coelho, How artificial intelligence is shaping medical imaging technology: a survey of innovations and applications, Bioengineering 10 (12) (2023) 1435

    2023

  12. [20]

    Di Cosmo, M

    M. Di Cosmo, M. C. Fiorentino, F. P. Villani, E. Frontoni, G. Smerilli, E. Filippucci, S. Moccia, A deep learning approach to median nerve eval- uation in ultrasound images of carpal tunnel inlet, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 60 (11) (2022) 3255–3264

    2022

  13. [21]

    Smerilli, E

    G. Smerilli, E. Cipolletta, G. Sartini, E. Moscioni, M. Di Cosmo, M. C. Fiorentino, S. Moccia, E. Frontoni, W. Grassi, E. Filippucci, Develop- ment of a convolutional neural network for the identification and the measurement of the median nerve on ultrasound images acquired at...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Du Toit, N

    C. Du Toit, N. Orlando, S. Papernick, R. Dima, I. Gyacskov, A. Fenster, Automatic femoral articular cartilage segmentation using deep learning in three-dimensional ultrasound images of the knee, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open 4 (3) (2022) 100290

    2022

  15. [23]

    Marzola, N

    F. Marzola, N. Van Alfen, J. Doorduin, K. M. Meiburger, Deep learning segmentation of transverse musculoskeletal ultrasound images for neu- romuscular disease assessment, Computers in biology and medicine 135 (2021) 104623

    2021

  16. [24]

    Lee, H.-U

    S.-W. Lee, H.-U. Ye, K.-J. Lee, W.-Y. Jang, J.-H. Lee, S.-M. Hwang, Y.- R. Heo, Accuracy of new deep learning model-based segmentation and key-point multi-detection method for ultrasonographic developmental dysplasia of the hip (ddh) screening, Diagnostics 11 (7) (2021) 1174. 33

    2021

  17. [25]

    Hemalatha, V

    R. Hemalatha, V. Vijaybaskar, T. Thamizhvani, Automatic localiza- tion of anatomical regions in medical ultrasound images of rheumatoid arthritis using deep learning, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechani- cal Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine 233 (6) (...

    2019

  18. [26]

    J. Lyu, X. Bi, S. Banerjee, Z. Huang, F. H. Leung, T. T.-Y. Lee, D.-D. Yang, Y.-P. Zheng, S. H. Ling, Dual-task ultrasound spine transverse vertebrae segmentation network with contour regularization, Comput- erized Medical Imaging and Graphics 89 (2021) 101896

    2021

  19. [27]

    A. Z. Alsinan, V. M. Patel, I. Hacihaliloglu, Automatic segmentation of bone surfaces from ultrasound using a filter-layer-guided cnn, Interna- tional journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 14 (5) (2019) 775–783

    2019

  20. [28]

    K. Luan, Z. Li, J. Li, An efficient end-to-end cnn for segmentation of bone surfaces from ultrasound, Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 84 (2020) 101766

    2020

  21. [29]

    P. Wang, M. Vives, V. M. Patel, I. Hacihaliloglu, Robust real-time bone surfaces segmentation from ultrasound using a local phase tensor-guided cnn, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 15 (7) (2020) 1127–1135

    2020

  22. [30]

    Zoetmulder, E

    R. Zoetmulder, E. Gavves, M. Caan, H. Marquering, Domain-and task- specific transfer learning for medical segmentation tasks, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 214 (2022) 106539

    2022

  23. [31]

    Ghafoorian, A

    M. Ghafoorian, A. Mehrtash, T. Kapur, N. Karssemeijer, E. Mar- chiori, M. Pesteie, C. R. Guttmann, F.-E. De Leeuw, C. M. Tempany, B. Van Ginneken, et al., Transfer learning for domain adaptation in mri: Application in brain lesion segmentation, in: International conference on ...

    2017

  24. [32]

    Zhang, J

    P. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Wang, J. Pan, Domain adaptation for medical image segmentation: a meta-learning method, Journal of Imaging 7 (2) (2021) 31. 34

    2021

  25. [33]

    H. Yang, W. Hua, Z. Xu, J. Sun, Domain-generalized discrete diffusion model for cross-domain medical image segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    G. Zeng, T. D. Lerch, F. Schmaranzer, G. Zheng, J. Burger, K. Gerber, M. Tannast, K. Siebenrock, N. Gerber, Semantic consistent unsuper- vised domain adaptation for cross-modality medical image segmenta- tion, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Compute...

    2021

  27. [35]

    R. Wang, G. Zheng, Cycmis: Cycle-consistent cross-domain medical im- age segmentation via diverse image augmentation, Medical Image Anal- ysis 76 (2022) 102328

    2022

  28. [36]

    Jiang, T

    K. Jiang, T. Gong, L. Quan, A medical unsupervised domain adapta- tion framework based on fourier transform image translation and multi- model ensemble self-training strategy, International Journal of Com- puter Assisted Radiology and Surgery 18 (10) (2023) 1885–1894

    2023

  29. [37]

    Kirillov, E

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y. Lo, et al., Segment anything, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  30. [38]

    P. Shi, J. Qiu, S. M. D. Abaxi, H. Wei, F. P.-W. Lo, W. Yuan, Generalist vision foundation models for medical imaging: A case study of segment anything model on zero-shot medical segmentation, Diagnostics 13 (11) (2023) 1947

    2023

  31. [39]

    J. Ma, Y. He, F. Li, L. Han, C. You, B. Wang, Segment anything in medical images, Nature Communications 15 (1) (2024) 654

    2024

  32. [40]

    Noh, B.-D

    S. Noh, B.-D. Lee, A narrative review of foundation models for med- ical image segmentation: zero-shot performance evaluation on diverse modalities, Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery 15 (6) (2025) 5825

    2025

  33. [41]

    H. Ning, Q. He, T. Lei, X. Cao, W. Zhang, Y. Chen, A. K. Nandi, Da 2- net: Integrating sam2 with domain adaption and difference aggregation for remote sensing change detection, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2025). 35

    2025

  34. [42]

    Balestriero, M

    R. Balestriero, M. Ibrahim, V. Sobal, A. Morcos, S. Shekhar, T. Gold- stein, F. Bordes, A. Bardes, G. Mialon, Y. Tian, et al., A cookbook of self-supervised learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12210 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    D. Wolf, T. Payer, C. S. Lisson, C. G. Lisson, M. Beer, M. Götz, T. Ropinski, Self-supervised pre-training with contrastive and masked autoencoder methods for dealing with small datasets in deep learning for medical imaging, Scientific Reports 13 (1) (2023) 20260

    2023

  36. [44]

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, G. Hinton, A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations, in: International confer- ence on machine learning, PmLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607

    2020

  37. [45]

    K. He, H. Fan, Y. Wu, S. Xie, R. Girshick, Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 9729–9738

    2020

  38. [46]

    Grill, F

    J.-B. Grill, F. Strub, F. Altché, C. Tallec, P. Richemond, E.Buchatskaya, C.Doersch, B.AvilaPires, Z.Guo, M.GheshlaghiAzar, et al., Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning, Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020) 21271–21284

    2020

  39. [47]

    X. Chen, K. He, Exploring simple siamese representation learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, 2021, pp. 15750–15758

    2021

  40. [48]

    G. E. Hinton, R. R. Salakhutdinov, Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks, science 313 (5786) (2006) 504–507

    2006

  41. [49]

    Larsson, M

    G. Larsson, M. Maire, G. Shakhnarovich, Colorization as a proxy task for visual understanding, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 6874–6883

    2017

  42. [50]

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y. Li, P. Dollár, R. Girshick, Masked autoen- coders are scalable vision learners, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 16000– 16009. 36

    2022

  43. [51]

    9653–9663

    Z.Xie, Z.Zhang, Y.Cao, Y.Lin, J.Bao, Z.Yao, Q.Dai, H.Hu, Simmim: A simple framework for masked image modeling, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 9653–9663

    2022

  44. [52]

    Zheng, J

    H. Zheng, J. Han, H. Wang, L. Yang, Z. Zhao, C. Wang, D. Z. Chen, Hi- erarchical self-supervised learning for medical image segmentation based on multi-domain data aggregation, in: International conference on medi- calimagecomputingandcomputer-assistedintervention, Springer, 2...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Bundele, K

    V. Bundele, K. Sarıtaş, B. Kargi, O. A. Çal, K. Tezören, Z. Ghaderi, H. Lensch, Evaluating self-supervised learning in medical imaging: A benchmark for robustness, generalizability, and multi-domain impact, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19124 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Y. He, A. Carass, L. Zuo, B. E. Dewey, J. L. Prince, Autoencoder based self-supervised test-time adaptation for medical image analysis, Medical image analysis 72 (2021) 102136

    2021

  47. [55]

    S. B. Ali, N. E. Ghannam, H. Mancy, B. G. Elkilany, Multimodal self- supervised learning for early alzheimer’s: Cross-modal mri–pet, longi- tudinal signals, and site invariance, Diagnostics 15 (24) (2025) 3135

    2025

  48. [56]

    Anton, L

    J. Anton, L. Castelli, M. F. Chan, M. Outters, W. H. Tang, V. Cheung, P. Shukla, R. Walambe, K. Kotecha, How well do self-supervised models transfer to medical imaging?, Journal of Imaging 8 (12) (2022) 320

    2022

  49. [57]

    J. Chen, Y. Lu, Q. Yu, X. Luo, E. Adeli, Y. Wang, L. Lu, A. L. Yuille, Y. Zhou, Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Y. Zhou, B. Felfeliyan, S. Ghosh, J. Knight, F. Alves-Pereira, C. Keen, J. Küpper, A. R. Hareendranathan, J. L. Jaremko, Simicl: A simple visual in-context learning framework for ultrasound segmentation, in: 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.