mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Optimization in Sparse 2D to Dense 3D Weakly Supervised Learning: Application to Multi-Label Segmentation of Large ex vivo MRI Data

arXiv 2605.12753 ↗First posted 12 May 2026eess.IV cs.CV cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

INTRODUCTION | Fully supervised 3D segmentation of high-resolution ex vivo MRI is limited by the prohibitive cost of volumetric annotation, forcing reliance on sparse 2D slices. Weakly supervised Sparse-to-Dense frameworks bridge this gap, but guidelines remain ambiguous regarding human-centric visual enhancements and transferring optimization strategies across dimensions. We analyze divergent regularization needs for multi-class segmentation of high-resolution ex vivo spinal cord MRI. METHODS | We used 9.4T MRI of multiple sclerosis spinal cords (>104,000 slices) with sparse annotations (428 slices). A 2D Teacher trained on sparse slices generated dense pseudo-labels to train a 3D Student. We systematically evaluated the impact of human-centric preprocessing, spatial augmentation, and soft-label regularization on both architectures. RESULTS | We identified a critical divergence in training dynamics. The 2D Teacher required strong spatial augmentation and soft-labeling to overcome data scarcity, improving White Matter Lesion Dice scores by >11 points. However, propagating these techniques to the 3D Student degraded its performance. Furthermore, human-centric preprocessing (e.g., CLAHE) disrupted global statistical cues, dropping Gray Matter Lesion Dice scores by ~25 points. DISCUSSION | Our study highlights a perception divergence (human-centric contrast enhancement harms machine models) and a regularization conflict across dimensions. 3D architectures trained on dense pseudo-labels exhibit fundamentally different optimization landscapes than 2D counterparts and require distinct, conservative regularization. Code and models: https://github.com/ivadomed/model_seg_sc-gm-lesion_human_ms_exvivo_t2star.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

Builds on

8 of 22 references.

References · 8

  1. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
  2. 2019When Does Label Smoothing Help?cited by 988
  3. 2020Contrastive learning of global and local features for medical image segmentation with limited annotationscited by 309
  4. 2019Embracing Imperfect Datasets: A Review of Deep Learning Solutions for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 260
  5. 2020SoftSeg: Advantages of soft versus binary training for image segmentationcited by 26
  6. 2019One Network to Segment Them All: A General, Lightweight System for Accurate 3D Medical Image Segmentationcited by 25
  7. 20233D Medical Image Segmentation with Sparse Annotation via Cross-Teaching between 3D and 2D Networkscited by 7
  8. 2021Incorporating Boundary Uncertainty into loss functions for biomedical image segmentationcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.