Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39431952›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

Necessity and impact of specialization of large foundation model for medical segmentation tasks.

Eric Nguyen, Hengjie Liu, Dan Ruan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric NguyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Hengjie LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Dan RuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

Research Training in Biomedical PhysicsT32EB002101 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Michael F McNitt-Gray · 2003 to 2026
$5.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB002101UCLA Council of Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge foundation models, such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM), have shown remarkable performance in image segmentation tasks. However, the optimal approach to achieve true utility of these models for domain-specific applications, such as medical image segmentation, remains an open question. Recent studies have released a medical version of the foundation model MedSAM by training on vast medical data, who promised SOTA medical segmentation. Independent community inspection and dissection is needed. PURPOSE: Foundation models are developed for general purposes. On the other hand, stable delivery of reliable performance is key to clinical utility. This study aims at elucidating the potential advantage and limitations of landing the foundation models in clinical use by assessing the performance of off-the-shelf medical foundation model MedSAM for the segmentation of anatomical structures in pelvic MR images. We also explore the simple remedies by evaluating the dependency on prompting scheme. Finally, we demonstrate the need and performance gain of further specialized fine-tuning.

methodsMedSAM and its lightweight version LiteMedSAM were evaluated out-of-the-box on a public MR dataset consisting of 589 pelvic images split 80:20 for training and testing. An nnU-Net model was trained from scratch to serve as a benchmark and to provide bounding box prompts for MedSAM. MedSAM was evaluated using different quality bounding boxes, those derived from ground truth labels, those derived from nnU-Net, and those derived from the former two but with 5-pixel isometric expansion. Lastly, LiteMedSAM was refined on the training set and reevaluated on this task.

resultsOut-of-the-box MedSAM and LiteMedSAM both performed poorly across the structure set, especially for disjoint or non-convex structures. Varying prompt with different bounding box inputs had minimal effect. For example, the mean Dice score and mean Hausdorff distances (in mm) for obturator internus using MedSAM and LiteMedSAM were {0.251 ± 0.110, 0.101 ± 0.079} and {34.142 ± 5.196, 33.688 ± 5.306}, respectively. Fine-tuning of LiteMedSAM led to significant performance gain, improving Dice score and Hausdorff distance for the obturator internus to 0.864 ± 0.123 and 5.022 ± 10.684, on par with nnU-Net with no significant difference in evaluation of most structures. All segmentation structures benefited significantly from specialized refinement, at varying improvement margin.

conclusionWhile our study alludes to the potential of deep learning models like MedSAM and LiteMedSAM for medical segmentation, it highlights the need for specialized refinement and adjudication. Off-the-shelf use of such large foundation models is highly likely to be suboptimal, and specialized fine-tuning is often necessary to achieve clinical desired accuracy and stability.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedHumansMagnetic Resonance Imagingfoundation modelmedical image segmentation

Identifiers

PMID39431952
PMCPMC11699994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.