Context Matters: Support Set Selection and Failure Detection for In-Context Medical Image Segmentation

Emmanuel Zerefa; Guha Balakrishnan; Krish Kabra; Youssef Gehad

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Context Matters: Support Set Selection and Failure Detection for In-Context Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that in in-context medical image segmentation, retrieving support examples most similar to the query consistently matches or outperforms random sampling, and that a transformer trained on query and support embeddings can…

desk verdict Clean empirical study with a real new failure-detection component, but the similarity-selection gains may be inflated by image-level splits that leak same-patient frames into the support pool. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05333 v1 pith:HUEKIQSX submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CV

Youssef Gehad , Emmanuel Zerefa , Krish Kabra , Guha Balakrishnan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords in-contextlearningmedicalimagesegmentationsupportsetselectionsimilarity-basedretrievalfailuredetectionIoUthresholdtransformerclassifierDINOv3embeddings

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

In-context medical image segmentation adapts a model to a new structure or modality by conditioning on a support set of image–mask examples, so the composition of that set controls reliability. This paper claims that retrieving support images visually similar to the query consistently matches or outperforms random sampling across four benchmarks in ultrasound, microscopy, and X-ray, with the largest gains at the smallest support-set sizes. It also claims that a small transformer classifier can predict, from the query and support images alone, whether the segmentation will fall below a dataset-specific IoU threshold, achieving AUROC above chance on all four benchmarks. If these claims hold, in-context segmentation can be made more reliable in the low-annotation regime that makes it attractive for clinical use.

What carries the argument

The central object is the support set itself, the only task-specific signal an in-context segmentation model receives. For the selection result, the machinery is cosine-similarity retrieval: query and support images are embedded with a frozen DINOv3 encoder, and the K support images closest to the query in embedding space form the support set. For the failure-detection result, the machinery is a four-layer transformer classifier: query and support embeddings are input tokens with learned query/support role embeddings added, support tokens are given no positional encoding so the classifier is invariant to support ordering, and a learned [CLS] token's output passes through an MLP to output a binary failure label (IoU below a dataset-specific threshold).

What would settle it

Measure the failure classifier's AUROC on similarity-selected support sets instead of the random ones it was trained on; if the AUROC drops to chance on any of the four benchmarks, the proposed screen-then-select deployment pattern collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the reliability of in-context segmentation is governed more by how the support set is chosen than by its size alone, and that this reliability is partially foreseeable before the mask is generated. Using MultiverSeg as the segmentation model and DINOv3 embeddings for image representation, the authors show that selecting the K support images with the highest cosine similarity to the query embedding gives higher median IoU and tighter distributions than random draws at every support-set size, with the advantage most pronounced at K=1 and K=2 (median IoU gains of 0.16 on EchoNet and 0.14 on WBC). They further train a transformer-based classifier that takes query and support embeddings, plus a learned class token, and predicts whether IoU will fall below the dataset's median threshold; it achieves AUROC between 0.69 and 0.80, exceeding chance on every benchmark. The authors interpret these results as evidence that both informed support selection and pre-use failure screening are practical levers for safer in-context segmentation.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed deployment pipeline first selects support sets by similarity and then screens them with a failure classifier, but the classifier was trained only on randomly sampled support sets, so its accuracy may not hold for similarity-selected inputs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At small support-set sizes (K=1,2), similarity-based selection raises median IoU by 0.14–0.16 over random draws, so in the low-annotation regime where in-context learning is most attractive, informed selection is the largest lever.
The gap between similarity and random sampling narrows as K grows and essentially closes by K=16, implying that retrieval quality matters most when the support set is smallest.
Segmentation failure is predictable from embeddings alone, with AUROC up to 0.80 (EchoNet) and generally improving with K on three of four benchmarks, meaning a lightweight pre-screening step could flag unreliable outputs before deployment.
Because the failure classifier needs only the query and support images—not the predicted mask—it can be applied before segmentation runs, enabling a two-stage pipeline of retrieve-then-screen.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test the paper does not perform: apply the trained failure classifier to similarity-selected support sets and measure AUROC; if performance drops, the classifier would need retraining or calibration on the deployment distribution.
The permutation-invariant transformer design suggests the classifier encodes per-exemplar quality signals, so a natural extension is to rank candidate support sets by predicted success rather than merely flag failure.
Since only one segmentation model (MultiverSeg) and one encoder (DINOv3) were used, the gains may be specific to that pairing; testing a second in-context segmentation model would show whether the selection benefit generalizes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this one. First, the failure-detection piece is genuinely new: a transformer over query and support embeddings that predicts below-threshold IoU, and it clears chance on all four benchmarks. That is worth a look. Second, the headline similarity-selection result has a load-bearing unverified assumption: the split is image-level, not patient-level, and EchoNet has two frames per video. If one frame lands in the query pool and the other in the support pool, DINOv3 retrieval will almost certainly pull the same-video frame as the top support, giving a near-duplicate exemplar. That would inflate the K=1 and K=2 gains (0.16 on EchoNet, 0.14 on WBC) without meaningfully informing the model. The paper never tests a patient-level split, and the stress-test note is right that this affects the first headline result, not just the deployment pipeline.

What the paper does well: the experiments are clearly described, the comparison against random sampling is honest (40 trials, average IoU), and the failure classifier is evaluated at six support sizes with standard metrics. The authors also list sensible limitations: single segmentation model, single encoder, single median-IoU threshold, single split. They are not overselling the failure detection AUROCs, which are moderate (0.69-0.80).

Soft spots, in proportion. The leakage risk is the big one; it could change the conclusion, so it is not minor. Relatedly, there are no confidence intervals or significance tests, so "consistently" is doing more work than the data support. The deployment mismatch the reader flagged is real but secondary: the classifier is trained on randomly sampled support sets, yet the proposed pipeline uses similarity-selected supports, and that distribution shift is untested. Also minor: the per-dataset median-IoU threshold is data-dependent, and the paper uses a single fixed split, so variance across splits is unknown.

Who is this for? Anyone working on in-context medical segmentation or reliability tools for foundation models. The failure classifier idea is worth building on. But I would not cite the similarity-selection gains until the leakage question is resolved with a patient-level split.

Recommendation: send it to serious peer review with a request for patient-level splits, significance testing, and an end-to-end test of the proposed deployment pipeline. The core idea is sound, but the evidence as presented is conditional.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two mechanisms for improving the reliability of in-context medical image segmentation with MultiverSeg. It compares random support-set sampling with similarity-based retrieval using frozen DINOv3 embeddings on four benchmarks (EchoNet, WBC, HipXRay-Femur, HipXRay-Pelvis) for K = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and it trains a transformer classifier to predict, from query and support image embeddings, whether the resulting segmentation IoU will fall below a dataset-specific median threshold. The authors report that similarity-based selection consistently matches or outperforms random sampling, with the largest gains at small support sizes (e.g., +0.16 median IoU at K = 1 on EchoNet), and that the failure classifier achieves AUROC between 0.69 and 0.80 across datasets. They conclude that informed support selection and pre-deployment failure screening are practical levers for safer clinical use.

Significance. The work addresses a genuinely important operational question for in-context segmentation: how to choose the support set and when to trust the output. The main strengths are that the selection mechanism is driven by frozen embeddings independent of the segmentation model (avoiding circularity in the evaluation), the random baseline is averaged over 40 draws per query, and the experimental protocol is clearly described. If the results are robust, the similarity-selection finding is directly actionable because it requires no retraining. The failure-detection result is also useful, although the absolute AUROC values are moderate and the proposed deployment pattern is not evaluated end-to-end. The present evidence is not yet strong enough for the word 'consistently' because of the single data split and the potential patient/video identity leakage.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Figure 3] The split into query and support pools is performed at the image level, not at the level of patients or videos. For EchoNet, the dataset provides two annotated frames per video (end-systole and end-diastole), so the same video can contribute one frame to the query pool and another to the support pool. Since similarity retrieval uses DINOv3 embeddings, the top support for a query under the similarity strategy will often be the paired frame from the same video, which is a near-duplicate of the query rather than an independent exemplar. The reported median-IoU gains at K = 1 and K = 2 in Section 3.2 may therefore be inflated by patient-identity leakage rather than by genuinely informative exemplars. Please re-run the selection comparison with a patient/video-level split, or explicitly exclude same-video supports, and report the fraction of retrieved supports that come from the same acquisition. The same risk should be checked for WBC and HipXRay if multiple images per patient or slide exist. This is the most load-bearing unverified assumption in the paper.
[Section 3.3 and Section 4] The deployment pattern proposed in the Discussion first selects support sets by similarity and then screens them with the failure classifier, but the classifier is trained and evaluated entirely on support sets constructed by random sampling (Section 3.3, Eq. (1), Table 1). The distribution of query–support pairs under similarity selection is different from the random-sampling distribution, so the reported AUROC values may not transfer to the proposed pipeline. Please test the actual deployment pattern: evaluate the failure classifier on similarity-selected support sets, or at least report how performance changes when the random-trained classifier is applied to similarity-selected inputs.
[Section 3.1, Section 3.2] All experiments use a single fixed 20:80 partition and a single random seed, and the central claims are made without confidence intervals or significance tests. The abstract's 'consistently matches or outperforms' and the similar statement in Section 3.2 are stronger than what a single split can establish, especially because Figure 3 shows overlap between the random and similarity distributions on some datasets and support sizes. Please provide results across multiple splits or bootstrap confidence intervals for the median-IoU differences and for the failure-detection AUROCs.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2, Figure 4] Please specify how the transformer classifier handles variable K (e.g., padding and masking) and whether the classifier is trained jointly across all support sizes or separately per K; the text says results are pooled across support set sizes, but Figure 4 reports per-K AUROC.
[Section 2.1, Figure 3 caption] The random baseline is reported as a per-query average over 40 trials, while the similarity strategy is a single deterministic draw; this asymmetry should be stated in the caption, because the box plots compare a distribution of means to a distribution of single draws.
[Section 3.1] For EchoNet, please specify how the 'line segment annotations' were converted to binary segmentation masks (e.g., closed-contour filling), since the definition of IoU depends on the mask generation procedure.
[Table 1, Section 3.3] The claim that AUROC is 'above chance' should be backed by confidence intervals or a statistical test; Figure 4 shows that HipXRay-Pelvis performance declines toward chance at large K, so the pooled AUROC of 0.71 should be accompanied by uncertainty estimates.
[Section 3.1] Please report the number of distinct patients/videos per dataset and the number of images per patient/video, so readers can assess the leakage risk directly; the current description gives only image-level counts implicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: support selection and failure detection are empirically grounded with independent embeddings and standard supervised labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its own inputs. Similarity-based support selection uses a frozen DINOv3 encoder g that is independent of the segmentation model f; the selected support set is the top-K cosine-similarity images, and no parameter is fitted to the IoU values being reported. The random-sampling baseline is measured over N=40 independent draws, and the comparison is an empirical evaluation rather than a construction. The failure-detection component is standard supervised learning: labels are defined in Eq. (1) by the model's actual IoU relative to a per-dataset median threshold τ, and the transformer classifier is trained on query/support embeddings with held-out query-level splits. The median-IoU threshold is a data-dependent label definition, not a fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction. The cited prior works (MultiverSeg, DINOv3, visual prompt selection papers) are external and do not overlap with the present authors, so no self-citation is load-bearing. The reader/skeptic concerns about image-level splits and the train/deployment distribution mismatch for similarity-selected supports are validity and generalization risks, not circularity, because they do not make any reported quantity equal to an input by construction. No step in the paper requires invoking the target result as an assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the choice of DINOv3 embeddings for similarity, the representativeness of one segmentation model and one encoder, and the use of a single data split. The failure threshold is a data-dependent hyperparameter. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

per-dataset IoU failure threshold tau = 0.70 (EchoNet), 0.87 (WBC), 0.92 (HipXRay-Femur), 0.86 (HipXRay-Pelvis)
Set to the dataset's median IoU across all query-support pairs, which defines the binary failure label and balances the label distribution.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption DINOv3 embedding cosine similarity is a valid proxy for how useful a support image will be for MultiverSeg segmentation of the query.
This is the basis of the similarity-based selection strategy; if the embeddings do not capture task-relevant similarity, the gains would disappear.
domain assumption MultiverSeg and DINOv3 are representative of in-context segmentation models and image encoders respectively.
The authors acknowledge in Limitations that only these two models were tested, so the conclusions may not generalize.
domain assumption The single fixed 20:80 query/support split and 75:25 train/test split are representative of the data distribution.
No cross-validation or repeated splits are used, so results may be split-specific.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Context Matters: Support Set Selection and Failure Detection for In-Context Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HUEKIQSX

@misc{pith2026260805333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Context Matters: Support Set Selection and Failure Detection for In-Context Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HUEKIQSX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05333}
}

read the original abstract

In-context learning (ICL) adapts medical image segmentation models to unseen structures and modalities without retraining by conditioning on a task-specific support set of image-mask exemplars. Because this support set is the model's only task-specific signal, its composition directly influences segmentation performance. In this work, we investigate the support set as a controllable determinant of ICL reliability. First, we compare random sampling against similarity-based selection, where exemplars are retrieved based on their visual similarity to the query image. Second, we train a transformer-based classifier to predict, from the query and support images alone, whether a segmentation will fall below a specified Intersection-over-Union (IoU) threshold. Using MultiverSeg with DINOv3 embeddings across four benchmarks and three imaging modalities, we show that similarity-based selection consistently matches or outperforms random sampling, with the largest gains at the smallest support set sizes. Furthermore, our classifier predicts segmentation failure above chance on all four benchmarks. Ultimately, these results demonstrate that the reliability of in-context segmentation can be both improved via informed support selection and anticipated before use, providing practical mechanisms for safer clinical deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05333 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed in-context segmentation failure detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** In-context segmentation performance for random and similarity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Failure detection performance as a function of support set size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Advances in neural information processing systems33, 1877–1901 (2020)

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J.D., Dhariwal, P., Nee- lakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 1877–1901 (2020)

2020
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Butoi, V.I., Ortiz, J.J.G., Ma, T., Sabuncu, M.R., Guttag, J., Dalca, A.V.: Uni- verseg: Universal medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 21438–21451 (2023)

2023
[3]

Nature medicine 24(9), 1342–1350 (2018)

De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J.R., Romera-Paredes, B., Nikolov, S., Tomasev, N., Black- well, S., Askham, H., Glorot, X., O’Donoghue, B., Visentin, D., et al.: Clinically ap- plicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nature medicine 24(9), 1342–1350 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

In: Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing

Dong, Q., Li, L., Dai, D., Zheng, C., Ma, J., Li, R., Xia, H., Xu, J., Wu, Z., Chang, B., et al.: A survey on in-context learning. In: Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. pp. 1107–1128 (2024)

2024
[5]

In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy

Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Un- terthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., Houlsby, N.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recogni- tion at scale. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy

work page 2021
[6]

IEEE Transactions on Big Data (2025)

Douze, M., Guzhva, A., Deng, C., Johnson, J., Szilvasy, G., Mazaré, P.E., Lomeli, M., Hosseini, L., Jégou, H.: The faiss library. IEEE Transactions on Big Data (2025)

2025
[7]

In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Gao, Y., Liu, D., Li, Z., Li, Y., Chen, D., Zhou, M., Metaxas, D.N.: Show and seg- ment: Universal medical image segmentation via in-context learning. In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 20830–20840 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Nature biotechnology40(4), 555–565 (2022)

Greenwald, N.F., Miller, G., Moen, E., Kong, A., Kagel, A., Dougherty, T., Full- away, C.C., McIntosh, B.J., Leow, K.X., Schwartz, M.S., et al.: Whole-cell seg- mentation of tissue images with human-level performance using large-scale data annotation and deep learning. Nature biotechnology40(4), 555–565 (2022)

2022

Show all 23 references

[9]

https://doi.org/10.17632/zm6bxzhmfz.1

Gut, D.: X-ray images of the hip joints (2021). https://doi.org/10.17632/zm6bxzhmfz.1

2021 doi
[10]

Clinical Oncology34(2), 74–88 (2022)

Harrison, K., Pullen, H., Welsh, C., Oktay, O., Alvarez-Valle, J., Jena, R.: Machine learning for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy planning. Clinical Oncology34(2), 74–88 (2022)

2022
[11]

Nature methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

2021
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014) 10 Gehad et al

Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014) 10 Gehad et al

2014 arXiv
[13]

Nature580(7802), 252–256 (2020)

Ouyang, D., He, B., Ghorbani, A., Yuan, N., Ebinger, J., Langlotz, C.P., Heiden- reich, P.A., Harrington, R.A., Liang, D.H., Ashley, E.A., et al.: Video-based ai for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function. Nature580(7802), 252–256 (2020)

2020
[14]

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

Rakic, M., Wong, H.E., Ortiz, J.J.G., Cimini, B.A., Guttag, J.V., Dalca, A.V.: Ty- che: Stochastic in-context learning for medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11159–11173 (2024)

2024
[15]

Neuro-oncology27(8), 1946–1971 (2025)

Shi, T., Kujawa, A., Linares, C., Vercauteren, T., Booth, T.C.: Automated lon- gitudinal treatment response assessment of brain tumors: A systematic review. Neuro-oncology27(8), 1946–1971 (2025)

2025
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104 (2025)

Siméoni, O., Vo, H.V., Seitzer, M., Baldassarre, F., Oquab, M., Jose, C., Khali- dov, V., Szafraniec, M., Yi, S., Ramamonjisoa, M., et al.: Dinov3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[17]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2025)

Sun, Y., Chen, Q., Wang, J., Wang, J., Li, Z.: Exploring effective factors for im- proving visual in-context learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2025)

2025
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10233 (2024)

Suo, W., Lai, L., Sun, M., Zhang, H., Wang, P., Zhang, Y.: Visual prompt selection for in-context learning segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10233 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[19]

Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems30(2017)

Vaswani,A.,Shazeer,N.,Parmar,N.,Uszkoreit,J.,Jones,L.,Gomez,A.N.,Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems30(2017)

2017
[20]

Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), e230024 (2023)

Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.C., Meyer, M.T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A.W., Heye, T., Boll, D.T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., et al.: Totalsegmentator: robust segmen- tation of 104 anatomic structures in ct images. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), e230024 (2023)

2023
[21]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Wong, H.E., Ortiz, J.J.G., Guttag, J., Dalca, A.V.: Multiverseg: scalable inter- active segmentation of biomedical imaging datasets with in-context guidance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 20966–20980 (2025)

2025
[22]

Zhang, Y., Zhou, K., Liu, Z.: What makes good examples for visual in-context learning? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 17773–17794 (2023)

2023
[23]

Micron 107, 55–71 (2018)

Zheng, X., Wang, Y., Wang, G., Liu, J.: Fast and robust segmen- tation of white blood cell images by self-supervised learning. Micron 107, 55–71 (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2018.01.010, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968432817303037

2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Advances in neural information processing systems33, 1877–1901 (2020)

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J.D., Dhariwal, P., Nee- lakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 1877–1901 (2020)

2020

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Butoi, V.I., Ortiz, J.J.G., Ma, T., Sabuncu, M.R., Guttag, J., Dalca, A.V.: Uni- verseg: Universal medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 21438–21451 (2023)

2023

[3] [3]

Nature medicine 24(9), 1342–1350 (2018)

De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J.R., Romera-Paredes, B., Nikolov, S., Tomasev, N., Black- well, S., Askham, H., Glorot, X., O’Donoghue, B., Visentin, D., et al.: Clinically ap- plicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nature medicine 24(9), 1342–1350 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

In: Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing

Dong, Q., Li, L., Dai, D., Zheng, C., Ma, J., Li, R., Xia, H., Xu, J., Wu, Z., Chang, B., et al.: A survey on in-context learning. In: Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. pp. 1107–1128 (2024)

2024

[5] [5]

In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy

Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Un- terthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., Houlsby, N.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recogni- tion at scale. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy

work page 2021

[6] [6]

IEEE Transactions on Big Data (2025)

Douze, M., Guzhva, A., Deng, C., Johnson, J., Szilvasy, G., Mazaré, P.E., Lomeli, M., Hosseini, L., Jégou, H.: The faiss library. IEEE Transactions on Big Data (2025)

2025

[7] [7]

In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Gao, Y., Liu, D., Li, Z., Li, Y., Chen, D., Zhou, M., Metaxas, D.N.: Show and seg- ment: Universal medical image segmentation via in-context learning. In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 20830–20840 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Nature biotechnology40(4), 555–565 (2022)

Greenwald, N.F., Miller, G., Moen, E., Kong, A., Kagel, A., Dougherty, T., Full- away, C.C., McIntosh, B.J., Leow, K.X., Schwartz, M.S., et al.: Whole-cell seg- mentation of tissue images with human-level performance using large-scale data annotation and deep learning. Nature biotechnology40(4), 555–565 (2022)

2022