SASVi -- Segment Any Surgical Video

Amin Ranem; Anirban Mukhopadhyay; Ssharvien Kumar Sivakumar; Yannik Frisch

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SASVi -- Segment Any Surgical Video

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read SASVi couples SAM2 with a frame-wise Overseer that automatically re-prompts the model whenever surgical tools enter or leave the scene, yielding temporally consistent full-video segmentations from scarce annotations.

desk verdict Sensible incremental re-prompting idea, but temporal consistency is validated with self-consistency metrics that fail an oracle check and the released annotations are never compared to ground truth. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09653 v1 pith:L3YOAEX6 submitted 2025-02-12 eess.IV cs.CV

Ssharvien Kumar Sivakumar , Yannik Frisch , Amin Ranem , Anirban Mukhopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CV

keywords SurgicalvideosegmentationFoundationmodelsSAM2Re-promptingmechanismTemporalconsistencyMask2FormerSemanticCholec80

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes SASVi, a way to make SAM2, a foundation model for video object segmentation, usable on surgical videos without per-frame manual prompting. The key idea is to run a lightweight frame-wise detector/segmenter, called the Overseer, alongside SAM2; when the set of visible instruments changes for a few consecutive frames, SASVi backtracks to the first changed frame, samples prompt points from the Overseer's mask, and re-prompts SAM2 to keep tracking. The authors report that this re-prompting improves temporal consistency by at least 2.4 percentage points over single-frame prompting and frame-wise baselines on Cholec80, CATARACTS, and Cataract1k, and they release full-video segmentations derived from sparse annotations. If correct, the method turns a scarce-annotation setting into dense video annotations for an entire domain with no extra manual labelling.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the re-prompting loop: an Overseer model (Mask R-CNN, DETR, or Mask2Former, with Mask2Former chosen as the default) is trained on scarce segmentation labels and runs in parallel with SAM2 on every frame, predicting classes, boxes, and masks. A buffer stores recently predicted class sets; when the set of classes stays different from the initial buffer for more than $n_t = 4$ frames, SASVi goes back to the first changed frame $t' - n_t$, samples anchor points from the Overseer's mask for each present entity, and uses those prompts plus the mask to re-initialise SAM2, continuing forward. The backtrack-and-re-prompt step is what lets the pipeline correct SAM2's drift when objects leave the scene or new tools appear, and the frame-wise Overseer supplies the semantic class identity that SAM2 itself lacks.

What would settle it

Annotate a random sample of frames from the released full-video masks, especially frames immediately before and after the Overseer triggers a re-prompt, and compare human semantic segmentation to SASVi's masks with standard Dice/IoU. If the masks score high on optical-flow-warped consistency but low on expert-verified semantic accuracy at those transition points, the central claim that SASVi yields complete and accurate temporally consistent segmentations would be falsified; if expert Dice matches the reported consistency gains, the claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SASVi claims that a cheap, frame-wise detection model trained on a small annotated subset can act as an automated re-prompting supervisor for SAM2, so that the foundation model's memory-based temporal smoothing is combined with domain-specific semantic knowledge of which instruments are present. Whenever the detected class set changes for more than $n_t = 4$ consecutive frames, the pipeline tracks back to the frame where the change began, samples anchor points from the Overseer's segmentation mask, and restarts SAM2 from there; this corrects drift and picks up newly entered or departed tools. On three surgical datasets the resulting masks achieve higher optical-flow-warped Dice/IoU and lower contour distances than frame-wise nnUNet, Mask2Former, Surgical-DeSAM, and SAM2 prompted only once, and the authors use the pipeline to generate and publicly release complete masks for the full videos behind CholecSeg8k, CaDISv2, and the Cataract-1k segmentation subset.

Load-bearing premise

The temporal-consistency metrics (optical-flow-warped Dice/IoU and contour distance) are treated as proxies for segmentation quality on full videos where no ground-truth masks exist; if a mask is smooth but semantically wrong, for example silently dropping a newly entered instrument, those metrics can still score it well, so the reported advantage over frame-wise baselines would not prove that the generated full-video annotations are accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

SASVi produces full-video semantic masks for the Cholec80, CATARACTS, and Cataract1k counterparts of the sparse annotated subsets, and the authors release those masks publicly.
A lightweight Overseer re-prompting SAM2 yields temporally smoother and more complete segmentations than frame-wise models, one-time prompting, and similar re-prompting baselines on the three datasets.
The method needs only a small number of annotated frames per domain (around 1% of the video frames) to generate dense annotations, making it a practical annotation-extension tool.
The authors position SASVi as a baseline for future temporally consistent surgical video segmentation work.

Reading between the lines

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

If the temporal-consistency metrics are faithful, the released masks could serve as pseudo-labels for training video segmentation models on rare instruments, potentially mitigating class imbalance in surgical data science.
The re-prompting loop is model-agnostic on the foundation side: the same Overseer-triggered backtrack-and-re-prompt pattern could be applied to other video tracking or segmentation models beyond SAM2, and possibly to non-surgical scenes with similar composition changes.
A testable extension is to validate the generated full-video masks against a small set of human-annotated frames sampled at re-prompting moments, to separate genuine tracking quality from metric artifacts.

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

Dear colleague,

The re-prompting loop is a genuine incremental idea, but the paper's headline evidence for it is weaker than the writing suggests. The authors have SAM2 re-prompted by a Mask2Former overseer that detects when the set of visible instrument classes changes, and re-prompts with masks and anchor points, backtracking a few frames. That specific mechanism is not in Surgical-DeSAM or Surgical SAM2, and it is clearly described. Table 1's per-frame results are solid, and the compute analysis shows the overhead is modest.

The soft spot is the validation of temporal consistency and the released full-video annotations. Table 2's DiceOF/IoUOF/CDT/IoUT are self-consistency metrics: they compare adjacent predicted masks, not predictions to ground truth. The internal check is damning: on Cholec80, SAM2 prompted with ground-truth masks scores 0.730 DiceOF while SASVi scores 0.754. If a ground-truth-prompted oracle is not best on the headline metric, the metric is not a reliable surrogate for accuracy. And the paper never compares SASVi's output masks to the human masks available in the held-out frames, despite splitting these datasets for evaluation. That is load-bearing because the public full-video annotations are a central contribution; they are generated by the same method being proposed and could be systematically wrong.

There are smaller problems: no error bars or significance tests for Table 2, the abstract claims 'at least 2.4%' while another version says 1.5%, the code is a placeholder, and the sensitivity of the re-prompt threshold nt is not explored. None of these are fatal by themselves, but combined they mean the paper currently overstates what is shown.

What the paper does well: the idea is simple, the pipeline is reproducible in principle, the per-frame numbers are decent, and the data scarcity analysis in Appendix E is useful. The authors are honest in Appendix C about dependence on the overseer.

My bottom line: this deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for validation of a sample of the generated masks against human annotations, error bars on Table 2, and a corrected abstract. The method is a reasonable baseline for surgical video segmentation with scarce labels; the release of full-video masks could be valuable if validated. For my own work, I would not cite it until those numbers are checked.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SASVi, an inference-time re-prompting mechanism that couples SAM2 with a frame-wise object-detection and segmentation Overseer model (Mask R-CNN, DETR, or Mask2Former) trained on scarce annotated frames. When the detected class composition in a video changes, SASVi tracks back to the change point, extracts anchor prompts from the Overseer's mask, and re-prompts SAM2 so that the video continues to be segmented with temporally smooth and semantically complete masks. The authors evaluate per-frame detection and segmentation on CholecSeg8k, CaDISv2, and Cataract1k, report temporal-consistency results for full videos in Table 2, and describe publicly released full-video masks that they generate for Cholec80, CATARACTS, and Cataract1k.

Significance. If the validation were complete, the contribution would be practically valuable: it would reduce annotation cost for video segmentation, provide a reusable baseline for deploying SAM2 in surgical domains, and enlarge the available annotations for three surgical video datasets. The per-frame Overseer results in Table 1 are clearly specified and support the choice of Mask2Former as the main Overseer, and the pseudocode plus appendices on compute and annotation sparsity make the method easy to reproduce once code is released. However, the headline temporal-consistency claim rests on self-consistency metrics that are never validated against ground-truth masks on the held-out frames that were explicitly set aside in Section 4.2, so the significance of the claimed full-video annotations is currently conditional on additional evidence.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.4, Table 2] The headline improvement is not statistically supported. All entries in Table 2 are single point estimates with no confidence intervals, per-video error bars, or significance tests, and the abstract's claim of improvement 'by at least 2.4%' is not tied to any specific compared pair in the table. Given that the test portion consists of only a few videos (Section 4.2), the variability is likely substantial, so the statement that re-prompting 'significantly improves' temporal consistency cannot be evaluated from the reported results.
[Sections 4.4 and 5] The temporal-consistency metrics measure self-consistency, not accuracy. DiceOF/IoUOF compare predictions across adjacent frames after optical-flow warping, and CDT/IoUT compare adjacent predictions directly; none of these metrics compares a predicted mask to a human annotation. The paper defines held-out annotated frames in the test splits in Section 4.2 but never reports SASVi's full-video output masks evaluated against these ground-truth masks. Consequently, the central contribution—that the released full-video masks for Cholec80, CATARACTS, and Cataract1k are usable annotations—is not validated.
[Section 4.4, Table 2] The internal evidence contradicts the use of DiceOF as an accuracy surrogate. On Cholec80, SAM2 (GT), which is re-prompted with ground-truth masks whenever they are available, achieves DiceOF 0.730 and CDT 2.879, while SASVi (Mask2Former) achieves DiceOF 0.754 and CDT 3.291. If ground-truth prompting is not the best method on the headline metric, the metric cannot be relied on to rank methods by true segmentation quality; this reinforces the need for direct accuracy evaluation of the generated masks.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] The anchor sampling size na is required by Algorithm 1 but is never specified or ablated, and the temporal change threshold nt is given only as an empirical value (nt = 4) with no sensitivity analysis; both should be documented or experimentally justified.
[Section 4.4] The phrase 'by at least 2.4%' should state explicitly which metric and which method pair it refers to; as written, it is not traceable from Table 2.
[Appendix C] The paper correctly acknowledges that SASVi's performance depends on the Overseer quality, and Table C1 shows that this dependence is strong, but no error-propagation analysis or comparison with direct accuracy on held-out frames is provided; this limitation should be discussed in the main text or addressed experimentally.
[Section 4.4, paragraph 2] The dataset name 'CadISv2' should be spelled 'CaDISv2' for consistency with Section 4.1 and the reference list.
[Table 1] Reporting only macro-averaged Semantic Dice hides per-class behavior; adding per-class Dice or a confusion analysis would help identify which semantic classes drive the reported improvements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the core comparison uses held-out frames and standard training; the only self-referential elements are the self-consistency metrics and method-generated public annotations, which are limitations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The Overseer is trained on the training split of CholecSeg8k, CaDISv2, and Cataract1k (Section 4.2: 'We split the available videos in CholecSeg8k, CaDISv2 and Cataracts1k for training/-validation/testing by 14/2/2, 19/3/3 and 24/3/3'), and the quantitative comparison in Table 2 is made on the corresponding held-out videos, so the headline 'at least 2.4%' improvement is not forced by construction. The temporal consistency metrics (DiceOF/IoUOF and CDT/IoUT) are self-consistency measures; the paper itself states that CDT/IoUT 'disregard the actual image content' (Section 4.4), and the optical-flow metrics only check agreement between a warped previous mask and the next predicted mask. This is a validity caveat, not a circular step, because no parameter is fitted to the metric and the metric is not used as a training objective. The released full-video annotations for Cholec80, CATARACTS, and Cataract1k are generated by SASVi without external ground-truth validation, which makes them method-dependent, but the paper does not claim to validate them against held-out ground truth, and the central comparison does not depend on them. The only self-citation is [27] for the optical-flow warping metric, but it appears together with external prior work [26] and is not load-bearing. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by definition or by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or architectural entities are introduced; the Overseer is a role assigned to existing detection models. The central claim rests mainly on two empirical hyperparameters and three domain assumptions about SAM2's re-prompting behavior, the validity of the temporal metrics, and Overseer reliability.

free parameters (2)

temporal change threshold nt = 4
Empirically set in Section 3.3 to reduce the impact of wrong Overseer predictions; the final video segmentation results depend on this choice.
anchor sampling size na = not specified
Required by Algorithm 1 (na >= 1) but its value is never reported in the paper; results may depend on it.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption SAM2 continues segmenting correctly after being re-prompted with Overseer masks and anchor points
Invoked in Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1; if re-prompting does not restore tracking, the whole pipeline fails.
domain assumption Optical-flow warping and contour-distance metrics measure clinically meaningful temporal consistency
Adopted in Section 4.4 from image-to-image translation literature; no full-video ground truth is available to validate that these scores imply correct segmentations.
domain assumption The Overseer's class predictions on unannotated frames are reliable enough to detect scene changes
Central to the re-prompting trigger in Section 3.3; Table C1 shows SASVi degrades sharply when the Overseer is trained on only 1-10% of annotations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SASVi -- Segment Any Surgical Video." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3YOAEX6

@misc{pith2026250209653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SASVi -- Segment Any Surgical Video},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3YOAEX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09653}
}

read the original abstract

Purpose: Foundation models, trained on multitudes of public datasets, often require additional fine-tuning or re-prompting mechanisms to be applied to visually distinct target domains such as surgical videos. Further, without domain knowledge, they cannot model the specific semantics of the target domain. Hence, when applied to surgical video segmentation, they fail to generalise to sections where previously tracked objects leave the scene or new objects enter. Methods: We propose SASVi, a novel re-prompting mechanism based on a frame-wise Mask R-CNN Overseer model, which is trained on a minimal amount of scarcely available annotations for the target domain. This model automatically re-prompts the foundation model SAM2 when the scene constellation changes, allowing for temporally smooth and complete segmentation of full surgical videos. Results: Re-prompting based on our Overseer model significantly improves the temporal consistency of surgical video segmentation compared to similar prompting techniques and especially frame-wise segmentation, which neglects temporal information, by at least 1.5%. Our proposed approach allows us to successfully deploy SAM2 to surgical videos, which we quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrate for three different cholecystectomy and cataract surgery datasets. Conclusion: SASVi can serve as a new baseline for smooth and temporally consistent segmentation of surgical videos with scarcely available annotation data. Our method allows us to leverage scarce annotations and obtain complete annotations for full videos of the large-scale counterpart datasets. We make those annotations publicly available, providing extensive annotation data for the future development of surgical data science models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

SG2VID: Scene Graphs Enable Fine-Grained Control for Video Synthesis
cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

SG2VID conditions a latent video diffusion model on scene graphs with temporal features to generate controllable surgical videos across cataract and cholecystectomy datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage for Trauma Patients

Sanner, A.P., Grauhan, N.F., Brockmann, M.A., Othman, A.E., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Detection of intracranial hemorrhage for trauma patients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10768 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[2]

: Cataracts: Challenge on automatic tool annotation for cataract surgery

Al Hajj, H., Lamard, M., Conze, P.-H., Roychowdhury, S., Hu, X., Marˇ salkait˙ e, G., Zisimopoulos, O., Dedmari, M.A., Zhao, F., Prellberg, J., et al. : Cataracts: Challenge on automatic tool annotation for cataract surgery. MedIA 52, 24–41 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36(1), 86–97 (2016)

Twinanda, A.P., Shehata, S., Mutter, D., Marescaux, J., De Mathelin, M., Padoy, N.: Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36(1), 86–97 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Nature Communications 15(1), 654 (2024)

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

2024
[5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04593 (2024) 11

Yu, J., Wang, A., Dong, W., Xu, M., Islam, M., Wang, J., Bai, L., Ren, H.: Sam 2 in robotic surgery: An empirical evaluation for robustness and generalization in surgical video segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04593 (2024) 11

arXiv 2024
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04579 (2024)

Chen, T., Lu, A., Zhu, L., Ding, C., Yu, C., Ji, D., Li, Z., Sun, L., Mao, P., Zang, Y.: Sam2-adapter: Evaluating & adapting segment anything 2 in down- stream tasks: Camouflage, shadow, medical image segmentation, and more. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04579 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[7]

IJCARS, 1–5 (2024)

Sheng, Y., Bano, S., Clarkson, M.J., Islam, M.: Surgical-desam: decoupling sam for instrument segmentation in robotic surgery. IJCARS, 1–5 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

In: AAAI, vol

Yue, W., Zhang, J., Hu, K., Xia, Y., Luo, J., Wang, Z.: Surgicalsam: Efficient class promptable surgical instrument segmentation. In: AAAI, vol. 38, pp. 6890–6898 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 29 references

[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08003 (2024)

Wu, Z., Schmidt, A., Kazanzides, P., Salcudean, S.E.: Real-time surgical instru- ment segmentation in video using point tracking and segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08003 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07931 (2024)

Liu, H., Zhang, E., Wu, J., Hong, M., Jin, Y.: Surgical sam 2: Real-time segment anything in surgical video by efficient frame pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07931 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01648 (2024)

Lou, A., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Labadie, R.F., Noble, J.: Zero-shot surgical tool seg- mentation in monocular video using segment anything model 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01648 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

Ravi, N., Gabeur, V., Hu, Y.-T., Hu, R., Ryali, C., Ma, T., Khedr, H., R¨ adle, R., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., et al.: Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[13]

In: MICCAI, pp

Wang, A., Islam, M., Xu, M., Zhang, Y., Ren, H.: Sam meets robotic surgery: an empirical study on generalization, robustness and adaptation. In: MICCAI, pp. 234–244 (2023). Springer

2023
[14]

In: ICCV (2017)

He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R.: Mask r-cnn. In: ICCV (2017)

2017
[15]

In: ECCV, pp

Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., Zagoruyko, S.: End-to-end object detection with transformers. In: ECCV, pp. 213–229 (2020). Springer

2020
[16]

In: CVPR, pp

Cheng, B., Misra, I., Schwing, A.G., Kirillov, A., Girdhar, R.: Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In: CVPR, pp. 1290–1299 (2022)

2022
[17]

In: MICCAI, pp

Wang, J., Jin, Y., Wang, L., Cai, S., Heng, P.-A., Qin, J.: Efficient global- local memory for real-time instrument segmentation of robotic surgical video. In: MICCAI, pp. 341–351 (2021). Springer

2021
[18]

MedIA 74, 102240 (2021)

Zhao, Z., Jin, Y., Chen, J., Lu, B., Ng, C.-F., Liu, Y.-H., Dou, Q., Heng, P.-A.: 12 Anchor-guided online meta adaptation for fast one-shot instrument segmentation from robotic surgical videos. MedIA 74, 102240 (2021)

2021
[19]

In: W ACV, pp

Wu, F., Marquez-Neila, P., Zheng, M., Rafii-Tari, H., Sznitman, R.: Correlation- aware active learning for surgery video segmentation. In: W ACV, pp. 2010–2020 (2024)

2024
[20]

: Segment anything

Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.-Y., et al. : Segment anything. In: ICCV, pp. 4015–4026 (2023)

2023
[21]

In: MIDL (2024)

Ranem, A., Aflal, M.A.M., Fuchs, M., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Uncle sam: Unleashing sam’s potential for continual prostate mri segmentation. In: MIDL (2024)

2024
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12453 (2020)

Hong, W.-Y., Kao, C.-L., Kuo, Y.-H., Wang, J.-R., Chang, W.-L., Shih, C.-S.: Cholecseg8k: a semantic segmentation dataset for laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on cholec80. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12453 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[23]

MedIA 71, 102053 (2021)

Grammatikopoulou, M., Flouty, E., Kadkhodamohammadi, A., Quellec, G., Chow, A., Nehme, J., Luengo, I., Stoyanov, D.: Cadis: Cataract dataset for surgical rgb-image segmentation. MedIA 71, 102053 (2021)

2021
[24]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06295 (2023)

Ghamsarian, N., El-Shabrawi, Y., Nasirihaghighi, S., Putzgruber-Adamitsch, D., Zinkernagel, M., Wolf, S., Schoeffmann, K., Sznitman, R.: Cataract-1k: Cataract surgery dataset for scene segmentation, phase recognition, and irregularity detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06295 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[25]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

Loshchilov, I.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[26]

In: ICCV, pp

Rivoir, D., Pfeiffer, M., Docea, R., Kolbinger, F., Riediger, C., Weitz, J., Speidel, S.: Long-term temporally consistent unpaired video translation from simulated surgical 3d data. In: ICCV, pp. 3343–3353 (2021)

2021
[27]

IJCARS 18(7), 1217–1224 (2023)

Frisch, Y., Fuchs, M., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Temporally consistent sequence-to- sequence translation of cataract surgeries. IJCARS 18(7), 1217–1224 (2023)

2023
[28]

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 methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021) 13 Appendix A Temporal Consistency Metrics This section aids in understanding t...

2021
[29]

Further, we will explore including existing ground truth data during SASVi inference

provided the means to fine-tune the model on custom data, which we will include in the future. Further, we will explore including existing ground truth data during SASVi inference. Despite these limitations, our proposed approach can be a strong baseline for smooth and tempora...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage for Trauma Patients

Sanner, A.P., Grauhan, N.F., Brockmann, M.A., Othman, A.E., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Detection of intracranial hemorrhage for trauma patients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10768 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

: Cataracts: Challenge on automatic tool annotation for cataract surgery

Al Hajj, H., Lamard, M., Conze, P.-H., Roychowdhury, S., Hu, X., Marˇ salkait˙ e, G., Zisimopoulos, O., Dedmari, M.A., Zhao, F., Prellberg, J., et al. : Cataracts: Challenge on automatic tool annotation for cataract surgery. MedIA 52, 24–41 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36(1), 86–97 (2016)

Twinanda, A.P., Shehata, S., Mutter, D., Marescaux, J., De Mathelin, M., Padoy, N.: Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36(1), 86–97 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Nature Communications 15(1), 654 (2024)

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

2024

[5] [5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04593 (2024) 11

Yu, J., Wang, A., Dong, W., Xu, M., Islam, M., Wang, J., Bai, L., Ren, H.: Sam 2 in robotic surgery: An empirical evaluation for robustness and generalization in surgical video segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04593 (2024) 11

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04579 (2024)

Chen, T., Lu, A., Zhu, L., Ding, C., Yu, C., Ji, D., Li, Z., Sun, L., Mao, P., Zang, Y.: Sam2-adapter: Evaluating & adapting segment anything 2 in down- stream tasks: Camouflage, shadow, medical image segmentation, and more. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04579 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

IJCARS, 1–5 (2024)

Sheng, Y., Bano, S., Clarkson, M.J., Islam, M.: Surgical-desam: decoupling sam for instrument segmentation in robotic surgery. IJCARS, 1–5 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

In: AAAI, vol

Yue, W., Zhang, J., Hu, K., Xia, Y., Luo, J., Wang, Z.: Surgicalsam: Efficient class promptable surgical instrument segmentation. In: AAAI, vol. 38, pp. 6890–6898 (2024)

work page 2024