Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Uncertainty-Guided Cross Attention Ensemble Mean Teacher for Semi-supervised Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a two-phase semi-supervised framework for medical image segmentation that combines cross-attention between co-training sub-networks, uncertainty-weighted consistency, and sharpness-aware minimization; it reports…

desk verdict Plausible SSL combination with strong ablations, but the central UGM mechanism is never defined, so the SOTA claim is unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15380 v1 pith:KYPK7Y3W submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV

Meghana Karri , Amit Soni Arya , Koushik Biswas , Nicol`o Gennaro , Vedat Cicek , Gorkem Durak , Yuri S. Velichko , Ulas Bagci This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedsegmentationmedicalimagemeanteachercross-attentionuncertainty-guidedconsistencysharpness-awareminimizationleftatriumMRIprostate
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

UG-CEMT is a semi-supervised medical image segmentation method built from a student–teacher pair with exponential moving average weights, connected by a cross-attention mechanism, and trained with uncertainty-guided consistency regularization plus sharpness-aware minimization. The paper's central claim is that this specific combination keeps the two co-training sub-networks sufficiently diverse while directing learning toward low-uncertainty predictions, so that unlabeled volumes can be exploited much more effectively than in mean-teacher or cross-pseudo-supervision baselines. The authors demonstrate the claim on 3D left-atrium MRI and multi-center prostate MRI, reporting that UG-CEMT beats the compared methods on all metrics and all label ratios, and that with 10% labeled data it comes close to fully supervised performance on the left-atrium task. A sympathetic reader would care because the result points to a practical recipe for reducing annotation burden in medical imaging without giving up accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the UG-CEMT architecture: a student V-Net and a teacher V-Net whose weights are updated by exponential weighted average, with a cross-attention (CA) module exchanging information between their feature maps. In the CA module, student features are projected to queries and teacher features to keys and values (and symmetrically the reverse), the attention weights are computed as softmax of scaled dot products, and the attended values are added back to the original features; this bidirectional exchange is meant to prevent the two sub-networks from collapsing into agreement. Around this core, uncertainty-guided consistency regularization computes MC-dropout entropy maps and weights the student–teacher consistency term by exp(-entropy), so low-uncertainty regions dominate, and the SAM optimizer flattens the loss landscape. The complete system runs in two phases: first CEMT is trained to generate uncertainty-guided maps, then CEMT is retrained using those maps.

What would settle it

Retrain the second phase on the LA 20% labeled split with the uncertainty-guided maps replaced by an all-ones map or by the model's own argmax pseudo-labels; if Dice and 95HD do not degrade, the UGM content is not carrying the reported improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a cross-attention ensemble mean-teacher trained with uncertainty-guided consistency and sharpness-aware minimization outperforms existing semi-supervised segmentation methods across every reported metric and label fraction. On the LA dataset with 20% labeled volumes, UG-CEMT reaches 89.73 Dice, 81.63 Jaccard, 2.20 mm 95% Hausdorff distance, and 0.50 mm average surface distance, and with only 10% labels it reaches 88.16 Dice, within roughly three points of the fully supervised B-VNet reference. On the multi-center prostate dataset, UG-CEMT reaches 72.02 Dice at 20% labels and 70.36 at 10%, also ahead of all compared methods. The paper attributes the gains to three interacting mechanisms: cross-attention that maintains disparity between student and teacher, uncertainty weighting that emphasizes reliable regions in the consistency loss, and SAM's flat-minima regularization; ablations show each component contributes, and SAM gives the largest jump on edge-sensitive metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the uncertainty-guided maps produced by the first training phase give the second phase useful supervision that is not redundant with the model's own confident predictions; the paper does not formalize or isolate this step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, semi-supervised medical image segmentation can approach fully supervised accuracy with 10% labeled data on cardiac MRI, cutting annotation cost substantially.
  • High disparity between co-training sub-networks, induced by cross-attention, could be applied to other dense prediction tasks where co-training currently collapses into self-training.
  • The paper's comparison of consistency regularization vs pseudo-label generation suggests that, after enough iterations, consistency objectives are more stable than pseudo-labels; this is a direct empirical claim of the paper.
  • SAM regularization contributes most to edge-sensitive metrics (95HD, ASD), implying flat-minima optimization is particularly valuable when boundary accuracy matters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-step uncertainty-guided map (UGM) design is described but never formalized with equations or an algorithm; an immediate testable extension is to replace the UGM with constant or random maps in the second phase to see whether the maps' content, rather than longer training, causes the gain.
  • The entropy-based uncertainty weighting, which avoids fixed confidence thresholds, could be transferred to semi-supervised classification or detection where confidence thresholding is currently standard.
  • The ablation pattern suggests a curriculum that starts with pseudo-label supervision and switches to consistency regularization after a few thousand iterations; the paper did not test this explicitly.
  • On the prostate dataset the gap to full supervision remains larger than on LA, so the 'approaches fully supervised' claim is best read as dataset-dependent; extending the method to more multi-center data would clarify where the limits are.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UG-CEMT, a semi-supervised medical image segmentation framework combining a cross-attention ensemble mean teacher (CEMT) architecture with uncertainty-guided consistency regularization and Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM). The method is evaluated on 3D left atrium MRI and multi-site prostate MRI datasets at 5%, 10%, and 20% labeled data ratios, reporting Dice, Jaccard, 95% Hausdorff distance, and average surface distance. The authors claim state-of-the-art performance across all metrics and datasets, attributing gains to uncertainty-guided maps (UGM), cross-attention between student and teacher sub-networks, exponential weighted averaging, and SAM. Ablation studies show each component contributes positively, and the paper includes a computational cost analysis and a public code link.

Significance. If the reported results hold, UG-CEMT would provide a practical recipe for reaching near-fully-supervised segmentation accuracy with very limited labeled data, which is valuable for medical imaging settings where annotations are scarce. The paper addresses an important problem and includes a reasonably thorough internal ablation, a direct comparison to several established SSL baselines, and publicly released code. The claimed computational cost (9.66M parameters, 47.1G MACs, about 1h50m training) is useful for deployment assessment. However, the central novelty described as uncertainty-guided maps is not formally specified, and the absence of statistical significance testing undermines the strength of the state-of-the-art claim. The reported gains over the closest baselines are often small (e.g., 89.73 vs. 89.18 Dice), so without variance estimates the conclusions are not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 and Table 4] The two-step training procedure based on uncertainty-guided maps (UGM) is never formally defined. Section 3 states that the first step trains CEMT to generate UGM and the second step retrains CEMT using these maps, and Figure 2 claims 'UG-CEMT creates new samples X' from input data using UGM,' but no equation, pseudocode, or algorithm specifies how UGM is computed, what representation it takes, or how it modifies inputs or features in phase 2. The only uncertainty quantity defined in the paper is the scalar weight U(x)=exp(-Entropy(y_mean)) in Eq. (7), which is a loss reweighting term, not a map that produces new samples. Since Table 4 attributes the largest relative 95HD improvement at 20% labeled data (3.78 to 2.20 mm) to the U component, this gap is load-bearing for the central contribution and for the state-of-the-art claim. Please provide a precise formalization of UGM and phase 2, and add an ablation that isolates phase 2 from longer training or from the scalar reweighting effect to verify that the UGM mechanism itself is responsible for the reported gain.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The experimental comparison reports single-run metric values without error bars or significance tests. Many of the claimed improvements are small (e.g., LA 20% Dice: UG-CEMT 89.73 vs. MC-Net 89.18; prostate 10% Dice: 70.36 vs. MT 66.04 is larger, but 5% Dice differences are within 1-2 points), so it is not possible to assess whether the differences are statistically meaningful. Given the abstract's claim of state-of-the-art performance across all metrics, the paper should report results over multiple random seeds with standard deviations and, ideally, pairwise significance tests (e.g., paired bootstrap or Wilcoxon). This is necessary to support the headline comparison.
  3. [§3.4 and Implementation details] The SAM neighborhood size ρ is given as ρ = 0.5 in Section 3.4 ('we use a SAM optimizer with ρ = 0.5') but as ρ = 0.05 in Implementation details ('neighborhood size parameter ρ = 0.05'). This inconsistency directly affects reproducibility and also the reported computational cost, since the SAM perturbation step depends on ρ. Please correct this and verify which value was used in the experiments.
  4. [§4] The qualitative analysis states that MCF-Net, PSGC, and CauSSL 'show comparable performance with our model,' but these methods are neither included in the quantitative tables nor compared in any figure. This statement is also in tension with the paper's claim that UG-CEMT 'outperformed all state-of-the-art methods across all metrics.' Please either provide quantitative comparisons with these recent baselines or remove the claim; otherwise, the scope of the state-of-the-art statement is unclear.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] In Eq. (7), the symbol U is used both for the distribution of unlabeled data and for the uncertainty weight U(x); this double use of U is confusing and should be disambiguated (e.g., use D_U for the distribution and w(x) for the weight).
  2. [§3.1] Eqs. (1) and (2) define CA only as the softmax attention weights, while Eqs. (3) and (4) then multiply by V; for clarity, the CA notation in (1)-(2) should be renamed as attention weights (e.g., A) to avoid implying that CA already includes the value multiplication.
  3. [Table 4] The text in Section 4.1 reports the Baseline 5% 95HD as 11.59 mm, while Table 4 lists 11.89; one of these is a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, such as 'Sof tmax' in Eqs. (1)-(2), 'SSANet' for SASSNet, and inconsistent use of 'EWA' vs. 'EMA' across the text; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UG-CEMT is an empirical SSL framework evaluated on external benchmarks; the vague UGM two-phase description is a reproducibility gap, not a tautology.

full rationale

UG-CEMT is an empirical semi-supervised segmentation method, not a derivation from first principles, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The uncertainty-guided map is produced by the model's own MC-dropout entropy and reused in the second training phase, which is standard self-training/consistency regularization rather than a logical tautology, and the reported results are measured against held-out LA, multi-site prostate, and pancreas benchmarks with ablations. The absence of a formal UGM algorithm in Section 3 and Figure 2, and the possibility that the 'U' improvement in Table 4 is confounded with longer training or the Eq. (7) scalar reweighting, are reproducibility and attribution concerns; they do not satisfy the requirement of exhibiting a specific reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs by construction. Self-citations such as Mortazi et al. 2023 and Isler et al. 2023 are motivational or contextual and are not load-bearing for the central claim. Therefore no significant circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The free parameters are standard training hyperparameters, most chosen by hand. The key assumptions are domain assumptions about the SSL setup and the reliability of MC-dropout uncertainty. The two-step training, which is the most unusual design choice, is not formalized enough to audit its assumptions.

free parameters (10)
  • SAM neighborhood size rho = 0.5 (Sec 3.4) and 0.05 (Implementation Details)
    Chosen empirically; the paper reports two conflicting values, so the exact value used for reported results is ambiguous.
  • MC dropout T = 8
    Number of stochastic forward passes for uncertainty estimation; set as a balance between quality and efficiency (Sec 3.4).
  • Dropout rate = 0.5
    Dropout applied after R-Stage 1 and L-stage 5 for uncertainty estimation (Sec 3.4).
  • EMA decay alpha = 0.99
    Standard value from prior mean-teacher works, not tuned here.
  • Consistency weight lambda_s = 0.05
    Balances the unsupervised consistency loss; set by hand.
  • Sharpening temperature = 0.1
    Reported in Implementation Details but no sharpening appears in the method; likely leftover from a different pipeline.
  • Memory bank size = 256 embeddings per class, dimension 64
    Reported in Implementation Details but no memory bank or contrastive loss appears in the method; unexplained.
  • Consistency ramp-up period = 40 epochs
    Controls the schedule of the consistency loss weight.
  • Base learning rate = 0.01
    For the SAM optimizer.
  • Crop size = 112x112x80
    Input sub-volume size for training.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MC dropout with entropy provides a reliable estimate of epistemic uncertainty
    The paper uses entropy of MC-dropout predictions as the uncertainty weight U(x) without calibration (Sec 3.3.1).
  • domain assumption EMA teacher weights provide stable and improving training targets
    Standard mean-teacher assumption, used in Sec 3.3.2.
  • domain assumption Cross-attention between student and teacher feature maps improves co-training
    Central design choice; only ablated, not theoretically justified.
  • domain assumption V-Net with removed short residual connections is an adequate backbone
    Chosen without comparison to other backbone architectures.
  • domain assumption The datasets are correctly cropped and normalized per challenge guidelines
    The paper states preprocessing follows challenge guidelines but provides few details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty-Guided Cross Attention Ensemble Mean Teacher for Semi-supervised Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYPK7Y3W

@misc{pith2026241215380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty-Guided Cross Attention Ensemble Mean Teacher for Semi-supervised Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYPK7Y3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15380}
}
read the original abstract

This work proposes a novel framework, Uncertainty-Guided Cross Attention Ensemble Mean Teacher (UG-CEMT), for achieving state-of-the-art performance in semi-supervised medical image segmentation. UG-CEMT leverages the strengths of co-training and knowledge distillation by combining a Cross-attention Ensemble Mean Teacher framework (CEMT) inspired by Vision Transformers (ViT) with uncertainty-guided consistency regularization and Sharpness-Aware Minimization emphasizing uncertainty. UG-CEMT improves semi-supervised performance while maintaining a consistent network architecture and task setting by fostering high disparity between sub-networks. Experiments demonstrate significant advantages over existing methods like Mean Teacher and Cross-pseudo Supervision in terms of disparity, domain generalization, and medical image segmentation performance. UG-CEMT achieves state-of-the-art results on multi-center prostate MRI and cardiac MRI datasets, where object segmentation is particularly challenging. Our results show that using only 10\% labeled data, UG-CEMT approaches the performance of fully supervised methods, demonstrating its effectiveness in exploiting unlabeled data for robust medical image segmentation. The code is publicly available at \url{https://github.com/Meghnak13/UG-CEMT}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of architectures and their performance for SSL segmentation tasks: (a) Mean Teacher (MT), (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed UG-CEMT architecture. UG-CEMT cre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visualization of 3D segmentation outcomes of various SSL methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of 3D segmentation outcomes of various SSL methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance comparison between pseudo label generation (PLG) and consistency regularization (CR) label [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801--818, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18, pages 234--241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    A survey on semi-supervised learning

    Jesper E Van Engelen and Holger H Hoos. A survey on semi-supervised learning. Machine learning, 109 0 (2): 0 373--440, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning

    David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, and Colin A Raffel. Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Curriculum labeling: Revisiting pseudo-labeling for semi-supervised learning

    Paola Cascante-Bonilla, Fuwen Tan, Yanjun Qi, and Vicente Ordonez. Curriculum labeling: Revisiting pseudo-labeling for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 6912--6920, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Smooth neighbors on teacher graphs for semi-supervised learning

    Yucen Luo, Jun Zhu, Mengxi Li, Yong Ren, and Bo Zhang. Smooth neighbors on teacher graphs for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8896--8905, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Instance localization for self-supervised detection pretraining

    Ceyuan Yang, Zhirong Wu, Bolei Zhou, and Stephen Lin. Instance localization for self-supervised detection pretraining. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3987--3996, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results

    Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training

    Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 6256--6268, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks

    Dong-Hyun Lee et al. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks. In Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML, volume 3, page 896. Atlanta, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Enhancing pseudo label quality for semi-supervised domain-generalized medical image segmentation

    Huifeng Yao, Xiaowei Hu, and Xiaomeng Li. Enhancing pseudo label quality for semi-supervised domain-generalized medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 3099--3107, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Co-training with high-confidence pseudo labels for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Zhiqiang Shen, Peng Cao, Hua Yang, Xiaoli Liu, Jinzhu Yang, and Osmar R Zaiane. Co-training with high-confidence pseudo labels for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04465, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation

    Lequan Yu, Shujun Wang, Xiaomeng Li, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer assisted intervention--MICCAI 2019: 22nd international conference, Shenzhen, C...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Mcf: Mutual correction framework for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Yongchao Wang, Bin Xiao, Xiuli Bi, Weisheng Li, and Xinbo Gao. Mcf: Mutual correction framework for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 15651--15660, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision

    Xiaokang Chen, Yuhui Yuan, Gang Zeng, and Jingdong Wang. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2613--2622, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Selecting the best optimizers for deep learning--based medical image segmentation

    Aliasghar Mortazi, Vedat Cicek, Elif Keles, and Ulas Bagci. Selecting the best optimizers for deep learning--based medical image segmentation. Frontiers in Radiology, 3: 0 1175473, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Deep learning-based detection and classification of bone lesions on staging computed tomography in prostate cancer: A development study

    Mason J Belue, Stephanie A Harmon, Dong Yang, Julie Y An, Sonia Gaur, Yan Mee Law, Evrim Turkbey, Ziyue Xu, Jesse Tetreault, Nathan S Lay, et al. Deep learning-based detection and classification of bone lesions on staging computed tomography in prostate cancer: A development s...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: ...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curriculum pseudo labeling

    Bowen Zhang, Yidong Wang, Wenxin Hou, Hao Wu, Jindong Wang, Manabu Okumura, and Takahiro Shinozaki. Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curriculum pseudo labeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 18408--18419, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Virtual adversarial training: a regularization method for supervised and semi-supervised learning

    Takeru Miyato, Shin-ichi Maeda, Masanori Koyama, and Shin Ishii. Virtual adversarial training: a regularization method for supervised and semi-supervised learning. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 41 0 (8): 0 1979--1993, 2018

    1979

  13. [21]

    How does disagreement help generalization against label corruption? In International conference on machine learning, pages 7164--7173

    Xingrui Yu, Bo Han, Jiangchao Yao, Gang Niu, Ivor Tsang, and Masashi Sugiyama. How does disagreement help generalization against label corruption? In International conference on machine learning, pages 7164--7173. PMLR, 2019 b

    2019

  14. [22]

    Reference-guided pseudo-label generation for medical semantic segmentation

    Constantin Marc Seibold, Simon Rei , Jens Kleesiek, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. Reference-guided pseudo-label generation for medical semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 2171--2179, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Interpolation consistency training for semi-supervised learning

    Vikas Verma, Kenji Kawaguchi, Alex Lamb, Juho Kannala, Arno Solin, Yoshua Bengio, and David Lopez-Paz. Interpolation consistency training for semi-supervised learning. Neural Networks, 145: 0 90--106, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Kaiping Wang, Bo Zhan, Chen Zu, Xi Wu, Jiliu Zhou, Luping Zhou, and Yan Wang. Tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Semi-supervised neuron segmentation via reinforced consistency learning

    Wei Huang, Chang Chen, Zhiwei Xiong, Yueyi Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, and Feng Wu. Semi-supervised neuron segmentation via reinforced consistency learning. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41 0 (11): 0 3016--3028, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning

    Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In international conference on machine learning, pages 1050--1059. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via a tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model with contrastive learning

    Kaiping Wang, Bo Zhan, Chen Zu, Xi Wu, Jiliu Zhou, Luping Zhou, and Yan Wang. Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via a tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model with contrastive learning. Medical Image Analysis, 79: 0 102447, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Self-supervised learning for organs at risk and tumor segmentation with uncertainty quantification

    Ilkin Isler, Debesh Jha, Curtis Lisle, Justin Rineer, Patrick Kelly, Bulent Aydogan, Mohamed Abazeed, Damla Turgut, and Ulas Bagci. Self-supervised learning for organs at risk and tumor segmentation with uncertainty quantification. In 2023 3rd International Conference on Elect...

    2023

  21. [29]

    V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation

    Fausto Milletari, Nassir Navab, and Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In 2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV), pages 565--571. Ieee, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmentation for medical images

    Shuailin Li, Chuyu Zhang, and Xuming He. Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmentation for medical images. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4--8, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 23, ...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training

    Yicheng Wu, Minfeng Xu, Zongyuan Ge, Jianfei Cai, and Lei Zhang. Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training. In Medical image computing and computer assisted intervention--MICCAI 2021: 24th international conference, Strasbourg, France, September ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Cr-sam: Curvature regularized sharpness-aware minimization

    Tao Wu, Tie Luo, and Donald C Wunsch II. Cr-sam: Curvature regularized sharpness-aware minimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 6144--6152, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A global benchmark of algorithms for segmenting the left atrium from late gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

    Zhaohan Xiong, Qing Xia, Zhiqiang Hu, Ning Huang, Cheng Bian, Yefeng Zheng, Sulaiman Vesal, Nishant Ravikumar, Andreas Maier, Xin Yang, et al. A global benchmark of algorithms for segmenting the left atrium from late gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Medi...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Ms-net: Multi-site network for improving prostate segmentation with heterogeneous mri data

    Quande Liu, Qi Dou, Lequan Yu, and Pheng Ann Heng. Ms-net: Multi-site network for improving prostate segmentation with heterogeneous mri data. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency

    Xiangde Luo, Jieneng Chen, Tao Song, and Guotai Wang. Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 8801--8809, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Pseudo-label guided contrastive learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Hritam Basak and Zhaozheng Yin. Pseudo-label guided contrastive learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 19786--19797, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Caussl: Causality-inspired semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation

    Juzheng Miao, Cheng Chen, Furui Liu, Hao Wei, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Caussl: Causality-inspired semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 21426--21437, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Deeporgan: Multi-level deep convolutional networks for automated pancreas segmentation

    Holger R Roth, Le Lu, Amal Farag, Hoo-Chang Shin, Jiamin Liu, Evrim B Turkbey, and Ronald M Summers. Deeporgan: Multi-level deep convolutional networks for automated pancreas segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th Interna...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.