ArticleMedical physics2025
Self-supervised learning improves robustness of deep learning lung tumor segmentation models to CT imaging differences.
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 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transformer-based cardiac substructure segmentation from contrast and non-contrast computed tomography for radiotherapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Random forest-based out-of-distribution detection for robust lung cancer segmentation.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Tumor-anchored deep feature random forests for out-of-distribution detection in lung cancer segmentation.Transactions on machine learning research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence standardizes CT-based body composition analysis in breast cacer to address methodological heterogeneity.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Patient-specific fine-tuning of a self-distilled transformer model for normal tissue segmentation in abdominal magnetic resonance guided adaptive radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Co-distilled attention guided masked image modeling with noisy teacher for self-supervised learning on medical images.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2026Article
- Privacy-Aware Continual Self-Supervised Learning on Multi-Window Chest Computed Tomography for Domain-Shift Robustness.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- VT-MFLV: Vision-Text Multimodal Feature Learning V Network for Medical Image Segmentation.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Federated prediction for scalable and privacy-preserved knowledge-based planning in radiotherapy.ArXiv · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-supervised learning (SSL) is an approach to extract useful feature representations from unlabeled data, and enable fine-tuning on downstream tasks with limited labeled examples. Self-pretraining is a SSL approach that uses curated downstream task dataset for both pretraining and fine-tuning. Availability of large, diverse, and uncurated public medical image sets presents the opportunity to potentially create foundation models by applying SSL in the "wild" that are robust to imaging variations. However, the benefit of wild- versus self-pretraining has not been studied for medical image analysis. PURPOSE: Compare robustness of wild versus self-pretrained models created using convolutional neural network (CNN) and transformer (vision transformer [ViT] and hierarchical shifted window [Swin]) models for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) segmentation from 3D computed tomography (CT) scans.
methodsCNN, ViT, and Swin models were wild-pretrained using unlabeled 10,412 3D CTs sourced from the cancer imaging archive and internal datasets. Self-pretraining was applied to same networks using a curated public downstream task dataset (n = 377) of patients with NSCLC. Pretext tasks introduced in self-distilled masked image transformer were used for both pretraining approaches. All models were fine-tuned to segment NSCLC (n = 377 training dataset) and tested on two separate datasets containing early (public n = 156) and advanced stage (internal n = 196) NSCLC. Models were evaluated in terms of: (a) accuracy, (b) robustness to image differences from contrast, slice thickness, and reconstruction kernels, and (c) impact of pretext tasks for pretraining. Feature reuse was evaluated using centered kernel alignment.
resultsWild-pretrained Swin models resulted in higher feature reuse at earlier level layers and increased feature differentiation close to output. Wild-pretrained Swin outperformed self-pretrained models for analyzed imaging acquisitions. Neither ViT nor CNN showed a clear benefit of wild-pretraining compared to self-pretraining. Masked image prediction pretext task that forces networks to learn the local structure resulted in higher accuracy compared to contrastive task that models global image information.
conclusionWild-pretrained Swin networks were more robust to analyzed CT imaging differences for lung tumor segmentation than self-pretrained methods. ViT and CNN models did not show a clear benefit for wild-pretraining over self-pretraining.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.