mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Comparing SAM 2 and SAM 3 for Zero-Shot Segmentation of 3D Medical Data

arXiv 2511.21926 ↗First posted 26 Nov 2025eess.IV cs.CVcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Foundation models, such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM), have heightened interest in promptable zero-shot segmentation. Although these models perform strongly on natural images, their behavior on medical data remains insufficiently characterized. While SAM 2 has been widely adopted for annotation in 3D medical workflows, the recently released SAM 3 introduces a new architecture that may change how visual prompts are interpreted and propagated. Therefore, to assess whether SAM 3 can serve as an out-of-the-box replacement for SAM 2 for zero-shot segmentation of 3D medical data, we present the first controlled comparison of both models by evaluating SAM 3 in its Promptable Visual Segmentation (PVS) mode using a variety of prompting strategies. We benchmark on 16 public datasets (CT, MRI, Ultrasound, endoscopy) covering 54 anatomical structures, pathologies, and surgical instruments. We further quantify three failure modes: prompt-frame over-segmentation, over-propagation after object disappearance, and temporal retention of well-initialized predictions. Our results show that SAM 3 is consistently stronger under click prompting across modalities, with fewer prompt-frame over-segmentation failures and slower prediction retention decay compared to SAM 2. Under bounding-box and mask prompts, performance gaps narrow in few structures of CT/MR and the models trade off termination behavior, while SAM 3 remains stronger on ultrasound and endoscopy sequences. The overall results position SAM 3 as the superior default choice for most medical segmentation tasks, while clarifying when SAM 2 remains a preferable propagator.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Nov 2025.

Builds on

19 of 27 references.

References · 19

  1. 2023Segment Anythingcited by 8,234
  2. 2020End-to-End Object Detection with Transformerscited by 7,414
  3. 2024SAM 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videoscited by 2,863
  4. 2025SAM 3: Segment Anything with Conceptscited by 906
  5. 2021The Medical Segmentation Decathloncited by 628
  6. 2022TotalSegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomical structures in CT imagescited by 613
  7. 2019A large annotated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithmscited by 373
  8. 2016EndoNet: A Deep Architecture for Recognition Tasks on Laparoscopic Videoscited by 367
  9. 2022AMOS: A Large-Scale Abdominal Multi-Organ Benchmark for Versatile Medical Image Segmentationcited by 351
  10. 2023Hiera: A Hierarchical Vision Transformer without the Bells-and-Whistlescited by 290
  11. 2019Deep Learning for Segmentation using an Open Large-Scale Dataset in 2D Echocardiographycited by 244
  12. 2020CholecSeg8k: A Semantic Segmentation Dataset for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Based on Cholec80cited by 106
7 more
  1. 2025MedSAM2: Segment Anything in 3D Medical Images and Videoscited by 96
  2. 2024Segment Anything in Medical Images and Videos: Benchmark and Deploymentcited by 42
  3. 2021Tracked 3D Ultrasound and Deep Neural Network-based Thyroid Segmentation reduce Interobserver Variability in Thyroid Volumetrycited by 29
  4. 2024Segment anything model 2: an application to 2D and 3D medical imagescited by 28
  5. 2025VoxTell: Free-Text Promptable Universal 3D Medical Image Segmentationcited by 19
  6. 2024Is SAM 2 Better than SAM in Medical Image Segmentation?cited by 16
  7. 2025SynthFM: Training Modality-agnostic Foundation Models for Medical Image Segmentation without Real Medical Datacited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.