ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Prompt-Preserving SAM ViT-B Adaptation Framework with Historical Branch Fusion and Soft Convolutional Expert Weighting for Medical Image Segmentation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Promptable medical segmentation models can be sensitive to small targets, weak boundaries, heterogeneous texture, and inaccurate user prompts. We propose HBF-BCER, a prompt-preserving adaptation of the SAM ViT-B architecture for medical image segmentation. Historical Branch Fusion (HBF) reinjects aligned bottleneck summaries from previous enhanced encoder blocks, while Balanced Convolutional Expert Routing (BCER) applies load-balanced, pixel-wise soft weighting to heterogeneous convolutional experts. The evaluation uses fixed held-out evaluation sets, three training seeds, matched original SAM ViT-B, image-encoder and mask-decoder full fine-tuning, decoder-adapter, LoRA, and DoRA baselines, repeated prompt perturbations, paired statistics, and internal module ablations. HBF-BCER achieved Dice scores of 96.69±0.12% and 92.24±0.18% for REFUGE2 disc and cup, 96.18±0.31% for ISIC2016, and 92.08±0.19% for TNMIX. Image-encoder and mask-decoder full fine-tuning produced slightly higher Dice for the REFUGE2 disc and TNMIX, whereas HBF-BCER produced higher Dice for the REFUGE2 cup and ISIC2016 and the lowest HD95 on all four targets. Among the four paired comparisons with available per-image outputs, HBF-BCER showed significant gains for REFUGE2 cup versus SAM + Adapter and LoRA and for TNMIX versus SAM + Adapter; the ISIC2016 difference versus full fine-tuning was not significant. The method reduced trainable parameters by 81.5% relative to image-encoder and mask-decoder full fine-tuning but increased total parameters, FLOPs, and inference latency. These results support HBF-BCER as a parameter-efficient training strategy rather than a generally lightweight or uniformly superior model.
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.