Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

BrainSegDMlF: A Dynamic Fusion-enhanced SAM for Brain Lesion Segmentation

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 This paper claims that a prompt-free, multimodal fusion-enhanced SAM model, BrainSegDMIF, outperforms existing brain-lesion segmentation methods on BraTS2021 and FCD2023.

desk verdict Coherent SAM-based multimodal segmenter, but the SOTA claim rests on FLAIR-only baselines and is not established; the modules are sensible and the evaluation is fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06133 v2 pith:DF6LPE7D submitted 2025-05-09 cs.CV

Hongming Wang , Yifeng Wu , Huimin Huang , Hongtao Wu , Jia-Xuan Jiang , Xiaodong Zhang , Hao Zheng , Xian Wu
show 3 more authors
Yefeng Zheng Jinping Xu Jing Cheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords brainlesionsegmentationmultimodalMRIfusionSegmentAnythingModelsmalldetectionmedicalimageprompt-freeFocalDicelossBraTS2021
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 sets out to build a fully automatic, prompt-free brain lesion segmentation model based on the Segment Anything Model. It claims that adding a dynamic multimodal fusion module, a layer-by-layer upsampling decoder, and an automatic prompt generator lets a SAM encoder use all available MRI sequences and reliably find small lesions. On the BraTS2021 glioma and FCD2023 focal cortical dysplasia benchmarks, the model reports Dice of 79.64 and 64.87, beating the compared methods on all four metrics. A sympathetic reader would care because a prompt-free multi-modal SAM could make lesion delineation faster and more consistent in clinical workflows.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the Dynamic Modal Interactive Fusion (DMIF) module, which takes features from modality-specific encoders, aligns them through a nonlinear transformation, learns per-layer softmax weights for each modality, and sums the weighted features into a fused representation that is fed back into the encoder. Around this sit a Prompt Generate module that uses attention between mask tokens and image features to create automatic lesion prompts, and a Layer-by-Layer Upsampling Decoder that progressively upsamples and combines multi-scale features, guided by a FocalDice loss. Together these components let the SAM encoder consume multimodal MRI input and decode masks without external prompting.

What would settle it

Re-run the Table 1 comparison with every baseline trained on the same full set of MRI modalities as BrainSegDMIF, and separately run BrainSegDMIF on FLAIR only; if the Dice margin shrinks to near zero or reverses, the state-of-the-art claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that BrainSegDMIF outperforms existing state-of-the-art brain lesion segmentation methods on two public benchmarks. On BraTS2021 it reports Dice 79.64, IoU 68.55, Precision 81.88, Sensitivity 78.24; on FCD2023, Dice 64.87, IoU 51.07, Precision 63.79, Sensitivity 68.07. The paper attributes the improvement to training with all MRI modalities through the DMIF fusion module, to the layer-by-layer upsampling decoder that preserves multi-scale details for small lesions, and to a prompt generator that produces masks without manual clicks or boxes. The authors present this as evidence that SAM can be adapted for automatic multimodal brain lesion segmentation.

Load-bearing premise

The headline superiority claim depends on comparing every baseline on a single FLAIR modality while BrainSegDMIF consumes all MRI modalities, so the margin could reflect extra input information rather than the model design.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, a SAM-based model can produce automatic, prompt-free brain lesion masks that beat the compared FLAIR-only baselines by 7 or more Dice points on both benchmarks.
  • Feeding all MRI modalities through a learned fusion module at encoding time appears to capture complementary lesion information that single-modality learning misses.
  • The layer-by-layer upsampling decoder is the component credited with recovering small-lesion detail, so the design may transfer to other thin-structure or small-object segmentation tasks.
  • A prompt generator inside SAM removes the need for click, box, or text prompts, which is a practical requirement for clinical automation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper compares its multi-input model against baselines restricted to FLAIR, so the reported superiority likely bundles the benefit of extra input modalities together with the architectural changes; the paper does not separate these factors.
  • A direct test would give every baseline the same four MRI sequences (or run BrainSegDMIF on FLAIR alone); if the margin collapses, the architecture's contribution is smaller than the headline suggests.
  • The dynamic weighting idea could generalize to other multi-modal medical settings, such as PET/CT or multi-contrast imaging, where modality reliability varies by slice and disease.
  • The sensitivity gains claimed for small lesions could be verified by re-evaluating on slices or cases stratified by lesion volume, which the paper does not report.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes BrainSegDMIF, a SAM-based 2D automatic segmentation model for brain lesions. It introduces a Dynamic Modal Interactive Fusion (DMIF) module, a prompt-generation mechanism, and a layer-by-layer upsampling decoder. The model is evaluated on BraTS2021 and FCD2023 against UNETR, SwinUNETR, nnFormer, MixUNETR, STUNet, SAM 2, MedSAM, and SAM-Med2D, reporting higher Dice, IoU, Precision, and Sensitivity on both datasets. Ablations examine modality combinations and module contributions.

Significance. If the headline comparison were fair, the paper would offer a practical prompt-free SAM variant that exploits multi-modal MR data and improves small-lesion sensitivity. Strengths include evaluation on two public benchmarks, architectural ablations (Tables 2 and 3), and a clear mechanism for automatic mask generation. However, the comparison in Table 1 simultaneously changes input modalities and architecture, so the reported margins do not isolate the proposed components; no error bars or significance tests are provided. The central SOTA claim therefore needs additional evidence before the contribution can be assessed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 (Table 1)] The main SOTA claim is not established because the baselines are evaluated on FLAIR-only input while BrainSegDMIF receives all available modalities. The text justifies this by citing Table 2, but Table 2 is an ablation of the proposed architecture, not of the baselines; it does not show that FLAIR is the best single modality for UNETR, SwinUNETR, nnFormer, MixUNETR, STUNet, MedSAM, or SAM-Med2D. Table 2 also shows that BrainSegDMIF with FLAIR alone reaches 73.91 Dice, close to SAM-Med2D's 72.39, while the four-modality version reaches 79.64; this suggests that a large part of the reported margin is due to the additional input channels rather than to the fusion and decoder design. To support the abstract's claim, the authors need to run all baselines with the same multi-modal inputs (and, for the 3D volumetric models, their native volumetric formulation) or otherwise explicitly control for input information.
  2. [Section 4.3 (Tables 1 and 3)] Results are reported from what appears to be a single training run without error bars, multiple seeds, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Brain lesion segmentation metrics are known to be sensitive to initialization and data variability, and some reported differences are small (e.g., +2.56 Sensitivity over SAM-Med2D on BraTS2021). The authors should provide at least three seeds with mean and standard deviation, or bootstrapped intervals, for the main comparisons and ablations.
  3. [Section 4.1 and 4.3] The evaluation protocol does not state how BraTS2021 and FCD2023 are split into training and test sets, nor whether the split is performed at the patient level or the slice level. Since the method operates on 2D slices, adjacent slices from the same patient are highly correlated; a slice-level split could leak information and inflate test metrics. Please specify the exact split, patient-level separation, and the number of training, validation, and test cases.
  4. [Section 4.3] Several baselines (UNETR, SwinUNETR, nnFormer, STUNet) are 3D volumetric networks, but the protocol appears to evaluate them on 2D FLAIR slices without explaining how the 3D models were adapted or whether they were retrained from scratch on 2D inputs. This discards the volumetric context these models were designed to exploit and makes the comparison unrepresentative of their state-of-the-art configurations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4.1 (Table 2)] The sentence 'adding a fourth modality (FLAIR) leads to a lower Sens score compared to using three modalities' is unclear; in Table 2, the four-modality row has Sens 78.24, which is lower than the T1+T2+T1CE row (78.97) but higher than the T2+T1CE+FLAIR row (77.44). Please specify the reference combination.
  2. [Section 4.2] It is not stated how many slices are used per volume, how the 3D ground-truth masks are mapped to 2D, or whether the 256x256 resizing changes voxel spacing; this information is needed for reproducibility.
  3. [Throughout] The model name is spelled inconsistently: BrainSegDMIF, BrainSegDMLF, and BrainSegDMlF appear in the title, abstract, and body. Please unify the name.
  4. [Equation (14)] Equation (14) is written as 'FocalDice = 1/2 Focal + Dice', which is notationally ambiguous; the intended ratio should be stated as FocalDice = 0.5*Focal + Dice or with explicit parentheses.
  5. [Section 4.4.2 (Table 3)] The text says 'the model with only the PG module served as the baseline', but the following sentences are difficult to reconcile with the table rows; please clarify which row corresponds to PG-only and what each checkmark denotes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central evaluation is benchmarked externally and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

No circular step is present. BrainSegDMIF is a supervised segmentation network trained and evaluated on public benchmarks (BraTS2021 and FCD2023) with standard held-out metrics; no reported number is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no equation in Sections 3.1-3.3 makes an output identical to an input by construction. The architecture equations define processing modules, but the paper's performance claim is empirical and externally checkable. The only self-citation, Ref. [42] (Mamba-SAM, whose authors include co-author Yifeng Wu and corresponding author Jinping Xu), appears in the Related Work survey of SAM adaptations and is used descriptively, not as the basis of the method or the evaluation. The concern that Table 1 compares BrainSegDMIF on all MRI modalities against baselines given only FLAIR input is a fairness/experimental-validity issue rather than circularity: the baseline handicap could inflate reported margins, but the margins do not reduce to the paper's own inputs by definition. Under the governing rules, that concern belongs in correctness risk, not in the circularity score. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the standard supervised-learning protocol: trained weights are fitted to public training data, and the evaluation uses the public test splits. No physical constants are fit. The load-bearing modeling choices are the input resolution, the loss weighting, the number of decoder scales, and the modality selection for baselines; none of these is justified by independent evidence beyond the authors' own ablations.

free parameters (3)
  • FocalDice loss weighting ratio = 1:2 (Focal:Dice)
    Eq. (14) sets loss = 0.5*Focal + Dice; the ratio is chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Input resolution = 256x256
    All slices resized or padded to 256x256 (Section 4.2); no resolution ablation is provided.
  • Number of decoder upsampling scales = 3
    Eq. (10) uses three upsampling modules (D1, D2, D3); the number of scales is fixed without ablation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Using all available MRI modalities (T1, T1CE, T2, FLAIR) improves brain lesion segmentation over any single modality.
    Stated in the Introduction and supported only by the authors' own ablation (Table 2), not by an external benchmark.
  • domain assumption A 2D slice-by-slice model captures the lesions well enough after slicing 3D volumes along the third dimension.
    Section 4.1.1 describes slicing 3D data into 2D slices; the paper does not compare to 3D methods on the same multi-modal input.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning a SAM ViT-B pretrained on natural images transfers useful features to brain MRI.
    The entire model is built on the SAM-B encoder (Section 4.2); the paper cites prior work for transferability rather than justifying it for this domain.
  • domain assumption FLAIR is the best single modality for all compared baselines, so a FLAIR-only comparison is fair.
    Section 4.3 selects FLAIR based on Table 2, which is computed for the authors' model, not for each baseline. This assumption is load-bearing for the SOTA claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BrainSegDMlF: A Dynamic Fusion-enhanced SAM for Brain Lesion Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DF6LPE7D

@misc{pith2026250506133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BrainSegDMlF: A Dynamic Fusion-enhanced SAM for Brain Lesion Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DF6LPE7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06133}
}
read the original abstract

The segmentation of substantial brain lesions is a significant and challenging task in the field of medical image segmentation. Substantial brain lesions in brain imaging exhibit high heterogeneity, with indistinct boundaries between lesion regions and normal brain tissue. Small lesions in single slices are difficult to identify, making the accurate and reproducible segmentation of abnormal regions, as well as their feature description, highly complex. Existing methods have the following limitations: 1) They rely solely on single-modal information for learning, neglecting the multi-modal information commonly used in diagnosis. This hampers the ability to comprehensively acquire brain lesion information from multiple perspectives and prevents the effective integration and utilization of multi-modal data inputs, thereby limiting a holistic understanding of lesions. 2) They are constrained by the amount of data available, leading to low sensitivity to small lesions and difficulty in detecting subtle pathological changes. 3) Current SAM-based models rely on external prompts, which cannot achieve automatic segmentation and, to some extent, affect diagnostic efficiency.To address these issues, we have developed a large-scale fully automated segmentation model specifically designed for brain lesion segmentation, named BrainSegDMLF. This model has the following features: 1) Dynamic Modal Interactive Fusion (DMIF) module that processes and integrates multi-modal data during the encoding process, providing the SAM encoder with more comprehensive modal information. 2) Layer-by-Layer Upsampling Decoder, enabling the model to extract rich low-level and high-level features even with limited data, thereby detecting the presence of small lesions. 3) Automatic segmentation masks, allowing the model to generate lesion masks automatically without requiring manual prompts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The figure compares feature extraction using multimodal versus unimodal data. The left panel shows multimodal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the BrainSegDMIF model. Given a set of multimodal brain-lesion images, the DMIF module first fuses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure presents the schematic of our Dynamic Modal Interactive Fusion (DMIF) module. This module accepts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visualization of our model’s segmentation performance on the BraTs21 dataset is presented. * indicates the use of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The visualization of segmentation results for various models on the FCD2023 dataset is presented. * indicates the use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ujjwal Baid, Satyam Ghodasara, Suyash Mohan, Michel Bilello, Evan Calabrese, Errol Colak, Keyvan Farahani, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Felipe C Kitamura, Sarthak Pati, et al . 2021. The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Olivier Bernard, Alain Lalande, Clement Zotti, Frederick Cervenansky, Xin Yang, Pheng-Ann Heng, Irem Cetin, Karim Lekadir, Oscar Camara, Miguel Angel Gon- zalez Ballester, et al. 2018. Deep learning techniques for automatic MRI cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE trans- actions on medical imaging 37, 11 (2018),...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. 2022. Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In European conference on computer vision . Springer, 205–218

    2022

  4. [4]

    Junlong Cheng, Jin Ye, Zhongying Deng, Jianpin Chen, Tianbin Li, Haoyu Wang, Yanzhou Su, Ziyan Huang, Jilong Chen, Lei Jiang, et al. 2023. Sam-med2d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16184 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Guoyao Deng, Ke Zou, Kai Ren, Meng Wang, Xuedong Yuan, Sancong Ying, and Huazhu Fu. 2023. Sam-u: Multi-box prompts triggered uncertainty estimation for reliable sam in medical image. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 368–377

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Yunpeng Gong, Liqing Huang, and Lifei Chen. 2022. Person re-identification method based on color attack and joint defence. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 4313–4322

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Yunpeng Gong, Zhun Zhong, Yansong Qu, Zhiming Luo, Rongrong Ji, and Min Jiang. 2024. Cross-Modality Perturbation Synergy Attack for Person Re- identification. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Vishwesh Nath, Yucheng Tang, Dong Yang, Holger R Roth, and Daguang Xu. 2021. Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In International MICCAI brainlesion workshop . Springer, 272–284

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Yucheng Tang, Vishwesh Nath, Dong Yang, Andriy Myronenko, Bennett Landman, Holger R Roth, and Daguang Xu. 2022. Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision . 574–584

    2022

  2. [10]

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Hongxu Yin, Greg Heinrich, Jan Kautz, and Pavlo Molchanov

  3. [11]

    Yuzhi Huang, Chenxin Li, Zixu Lin, Hengyu Liu, Haote Xu, Yifan Liu, Yue Huang, Xinghao Ding, Xiaotong Tu, and Yixuan Yuan. 2024. P2sam: Probabilistically prompted sams are efficient segmentator for ambiguous medical images. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM international conferen...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ziyan Huang, Haoyu Wang, Zhongying Deng, Jin Ye, Yanzhou Su, Hui Sun, Junjun He, Yun Gu, Lixu Gu, Shaoting Zhang, et al . 2023. Stu-net: Scalable and transferable medical image segmentation models empowered by large-scale supervised pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06716 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon AA Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier- Hein. 2021. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomed- ical image segmentation. Nature methods 18, 2 (2021), 203–211

    2021

  6. [14]

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jäger, Simon AA Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier- Hein. 2019. Automated design of deep learning methods for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08128 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Zeyu Jiang, Changxing Ding, Minfeng Liu, and Dacheng Tao. 2020. Two-stage cascaded u-net: 1st place solution to brats challenge 2019 segmentation task. In Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries: 5th International Workshop, BrainLes 2019, H...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Leo Joskowicz, D Cohen, N Caplan, and Jacob Sosna. 2019. Inter-observer vari- ability of manual contour delineation of structures in CT. European radiology 29 (2019), 1391–1399

    2019

  9. [17]

    Alain Jungo, Raphael Meier, Ekin Ermis, Marcela Blatti-Moreno, Evelyn Her- rmann, Roland Wiest, and Mauricio Reyes. 2018. On the effect of inter-observer variability for a reliable estimation of uncertainty of medical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al

  11. [19]

    Tim J Kruser, Walter R Bosch, Shahed N Badiyan, Joseph A Bovi, Amol J Ghia, Michelle M Kim, Abhishek A Solanki, Sean Sachdev, Christina Tsien, Tony JC Wang, et al. 2019. NRG brain tumor specialists consensus guidelines for glioblas- toma contouring. Journal of neuro-oncology 1...

    2019

  12. [20]

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

    Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 4015–4026

  13. [21]

    Xin Liu, Kaishen Yuan, Xuesong Niu, Jingang Shi, Zitong Yu, Huanjing Yue, and Jingyu Yang. 2024. Multi-scale promoted self-adjusting correlation learning for facial action unit detection. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Chenxin Li, Wuyang Li, Hengyu Liu, Xinyu Liu, Qing Xu, Zhen Chen, Yue Huang, and Yixuan Yuan. 2024. Flaws can be applause: Unleashing potential of segmenting ambiguous objects in SAM.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 45578–45599

    2024

  15. [23]

    Zhihua Liu, Lei Tong, Long Chen, Zheheng Jiang, Feixiang Zhou, Qianni Zhang, Xiangrong Zhang, Yaochu Jin, and Huiyu Zhou. 2023. Deep learning based brain tumor segmentation: a survey. Complex & intelligent systems 9, 1 (2023), 1001–1026

    2023

  16. [24]

    Yu Liu, Fuhao Mu, Yu Shi, and Xun Chen. 2022. Sf-net: A multi-task model for brain tumor segmentation in multimodal mri via image fusion. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 29 (2022), 1799–1803

    2022

  17. [25]

    Jun Ma, Yuting He, Feifei Li, Lin Han, Chenyu You, and Bo Wang. 2024. Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications 15, 1 (2024), 654

    2024

  18. [26]

    Wenjie Luo, Yujia Li, Raquel Urtasun, and Richard Zemel. 2016. Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    target delineation of glioblastomas

    Maximilian Niyazi, Michael Brada, Anthony J Chalmers, Stephanie E Combs, Sara C Erridge, Alba Fiorentino, Anca L Grosu, Frank J Lagerwaard, Giuseppe Minniti, René-Olivier Mirimanoff, et al. 2016. ESTRO-ACROP guideline “target delineation of glioblastomas”. Radiotherapy and onc...

    2016

  20. [28]

    Andriy Myronenko. 2018. 3D MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization. In International MICCAI brainlesion workshop . Springer, 311–320

    2018

  21. [29]

    Maithra Raghu, Chiyuan Zhang, Jon Kleinberg, and Samy Bengio. 2019. Transfu- sion: Understanding transfer learning for medical imaging. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Maithra Raghu, Thomas Unterthiner, Simon Kornblith, Chiyuan Zhang, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. 2021. Do vision transformers see like convolutional neural networks? Advances in neural information processing systems 34 (2021), 12116– 12128

    2021

  23. [31]

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolu- tional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceeding...

    2015

  24. [32]

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman Rädle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, et al. 2024. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Quanyou Shen, Bowen Zheng, Wenhao Li, Xiaoran Shi, Kun Luo, Yuqian Yao, Xinyan Li, Shidong Lv, Jie Tao, and Qiang Wei. 2025. MixUNETR: A U-shaped network based on W-MSA and depth-wise convolution with channel and spatial interactions for zonal prostate segmentation in MRI. Neu...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Fabiane Schuch, Lennart Walger, Matthias Schmitz, Bastian David, Tobias Bauer, Antonia Harms, Laura Fischbach, Freya Schulte, Martin Schidlowski, Johannes Reiter, et al. 2023. An open presurgery MRI dataset of people with epilepsy and focal cortical dysplasia type II. Scientif...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Cheng Wang, Xinyu Liu, Chenxin Li, Yifan Liu, and Yixuan Yuan. 2024. Pv- ssm: Exploring pure visual state space model for high-dimensional medical data analysis. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2542–2549

    2024

  28. [36]

    Liyan Sun, Chenxin Li, Xinghao Ding, Yue Huang, Zhong Chen, Guisheng Wang, Yizhou Yu, and John Paisley. 2022. Few-shot medical image segmentation using a global correlation network with discriminative embedding. Computers in biology and medicine 140 (2022), 105067

    2022

  29. [37]

    Hongqiu Wang, Guang Yang, Shichen Zhang, Jing Qin, Yike Guo, Bo Xu, Yueming Jin, and Lei Zhu. 2024. Video-instrument synergistic network for referring video instrument segmentation in robotic surgery.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Guotai Wang, Wenqi Li, Sébastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren. 2018. Auto- matic brain tumor segmentation using cascaded anisotropic convolutional neural networks. In Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries: Third International Workshop, B...

    2018

  31. [39]

    Hongtao Wu, Yijun Yang, Haoyu Chen, Jingjing Ren, and Lei Zhu. 2023. Mask- guided progressive network for joint raindrop and rain streak removal in videos. MM ’25, 27-31 October, 2025, Dublin, Ireland Hongming Wang et al. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Hongtao Wu, Yijun Yang, Angelica I Aviles-Rivero, Jingjing Ren, Sixiang Chen, Haoyu Chen, and Lei Zhu. 2024. Semi-supervised Video Desnowing Network via Temporal Decoupling Experts and Distribution-Driven Contrastive Regular- ization. In European Conference on Computer Vision ...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Junde Wu, Ziyue Wang, Mingxuan Hong, Wei Ji, Huazhu Fu, Yanwu Xu, Min Xu, and Yueming Jin. 2025. Medical sam adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation. Medical image analysis (2025), 103547

    2025

  34. [42]

    Hongtao Wu, Yijun Yang, Huihui Xu, Weiming Wang, Jinni Zhou, and Lei Zhu

  35. [43]

    Kaishen Yuan, Zitong Yu, Xin Liu, Weicheng Xie, Huanjing Yue, and Jingyu Yang

  36. [44]

    Chaoning Zhang, Fachrina Dewi Puspitasari, Sheng Zheng, Chenghao Li, Yu Qiao, Taegoo Kang, Xinru Shan, Chenshuang Zhang, Caiyan Qin, Francois Rameau, et al. 2023. A survey on segment anything model (sam): Vision foundation model meets prompt engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Yifeng Wu, Xiaodong Zhang, Haoran Zhang, Yang Sun, Lin Li, Fengjun Zhu, Dezhi Cao, and Jinping Xu. 2024. Mamba-SAM: An Adaption Framework for Accurate Medical Image Segmentation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) . IEEE, 3856–3859

    2024

  38. [46]

    Yichi Zhang, Zhenrong Shen, and Rushi Jiao. 2024. Segment anything model for medical image segmentation: Current applications and future directions. Computers in Biology and Medicine (2024), 108238

    2024

  39. [47]

    In European Conference on Computer Vision

    Auformer: Vision transformers are parameter-efficient facial action unit detectors. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 427–445

  40. [48]

    Hong-Yu Zhou, Jiansen Guo, Yinghao Zhang, Xiaoguang Han, Lequan Yu, Lian- sheng Wang, and Yizhou Yu. 2023. nnFormer: volumetric medical image seg- mentation via a 3D transformer. IEEE transactions on image processing 32 (2023), 4036–4045

    2023

  41. [49]

    Kaidong Zhang and Dong Liu. 2023. Customized segment anything model for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13785 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Yao Zhang, Jiawei Yang, Jiang Tian, Zhongchao Shi, Cheng Zhong, Yang Zhang, and Zhiqiang He. 2021. Modality-aware mutual learning for multi-modal med- ical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Confere...

    2021

  43. [2023]

    In International Conference on Machine Learning

    Global context vision transformers. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 12633–12646

  44. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Rainmamba: Enhanced locality learning with state space models for video deraining. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 7881–7890

Pith tools

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