ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
A Comparative Evaluation of Zero-Shot Performance of SAM, SAM2, MedSAM, and MedSAM2 Models on Lung Segmentation.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung diseases require accurate and early diagnosis to ensure effective treatment planning and close monitoring of disease progression. High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) provides detailed visualization of lung structures, while automated lung segmentation in HRCT images supports the diagnostic process and improves clinical accuracy. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the segmentation performance of Segment Anything Model (SAM), SAM2, Medical SAM (MedSAM), and MedSAM2 models within a zero-shot learning framework, using the MedGIFT database as the experimental benchmark. Notably, no retraining or fine-tuning was applied to the models, thereby enabling an objective assessment of segmentation performance as a function of prompt types. In the conducted experiments, bounding box (BB) prompts were automatically derived from the ground truth masks, while point-based prompts were generated with positive-only, negative-only, and combined strategies. The number of points varied between 1 and 10, with selections made both randomly and in a balanced manner across lung regions. Experimental findings revealed that, contrary to initial expectations, earlier model versions (SAM and MedSAM) outperformed their newer counterparts (SAM2 and MedSAM2) in BB-based segmentation tasks. Regarding point-based prompts, SAM and SAM2 exhibited complementary strengths: SAM2 achieved higher accuracy with fewer input points, whereas SAM demonstrated superior performance with more densely labeled scenarios. Disease-specific analysis showed point-based prompting was most effective in tuberculosis, while BB-based prompts performed poorly; pulmonary fibrosis had the lowest overall segmentation performance. The highest Dice obtained were 96.076% for SAM, 92.912% for SAM2, 94.326% for MedSAM, and 84.979% for MedSAM2. These results underscore the importance of selecting an appropriate model and prompting strategy based on labeling density and disease characteristics. This study presents the first systematic evaluation of the SAM model family for computed tomography lung segmentation on the MedGIFT database, demonstrating their potential as flexible and robust tools for clinical use. Moreover, this study highlights prompt selection as a key determinant of SAM-based segmentation performance in clinical lung imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41372720What 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.