Reducing Annotation Burden for Femoral Cartilage Segmentation in Knee MRI via Cross-Sequence Transfer Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Purpose: To develop and evaluate cross-sequence transfer learning for automatic femoral cartilage segmentation, testing bidirectional transfer between dual-echo steady-state (DESS) and sagittal proton density-weighted 3D fast spin-echo (Cube) sequences. Materials and Methods: We optimized a modified 2D U-Net on 507 DESS images from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). We then established same-sequence baselines using subject-level cross-validation on a subset of 44 OAI DESS images and 44 Cube images acquired at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. Each subset included 22 non-lesioned and 22 lesioned subjects. Finally, we performed transfer learning across sequences by fine-tuning the pretrained models on the target sequence with increasing training set sizes to study convergence, while keeping validation and test sets fixed. Segmentations were evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and average surface distance (ASD). Lesion effects were assessed with two-sided Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction. Results: Same-sequence training yielded higher accuracy on DESS than Cube (DSC, 0.900 vs 0.830; P < .001). Cube-to-DESS transfer matched DESS performance (DSC, 0.903 ± 0.032 vs 0.900 ± 0.027), reaching a performance plateau at 9 training subjects. DESS-to-Cube yielded a lower combined DSC (0.802 ± 0.049 vs 0.830 ± 0.042), reaching a plateau at 24 training subjects. Lesions did not affect DESS (P ≥ .39) but reduced Cube accuracy (DSC, 0.805 vs 0.856; P < .001). Conclusion: Transfer learning across sequences can substantially reduce target-sequence annotation requirements for femoral cartilage segmentation, but performance is direction- and sequence-dependent, and the effects of lesions on segmentation may vary across MRI sequences.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2026.
Builds on
6 of 26 references.
References · 6
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
- 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,501
- 2014How transferable are features in deep neural networks?cited by 1,225
- 2019Transfusion: Understanding Transfer Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 368
- 2017Convolutional Neural Networks for Medical Image Analysis: Full Training or Fine Tuning?cited by 221
- 2017Transfer Learning for Domain Adaptation in MRI: Application in Brain Lesion Segmentationcited by 66
Built on by
Not cited yet.