When Adaptation Hurts: Connecting Representational Drift to OOD Failures in MedSAM Fine-Tuning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Foundation models for medical image segmentation, like prompt-based MedSAM, generalize well across domains and modalities, often in zero or few-shot setups. However, their performance depends on the quality of prompts and the adaptation of the models to custom datasets. This work systematically examines how MedSAM generalizes across diverse medical imaging benchmarks, with six adaptation strategies: full-model and encoder-only LoRA, shallow and deep visual prompt tuning (VPT), and decoder-only and full fine-tuning. Models are trained on the International Skin Imaging Collaboration Challenge (ISIC 2018) dataset and evaluated under clean and increasingly noisy prompts on IN and Out-of-Distribution (OOD) datasets: close-OOD PH2 (dermoscopy), far-OOD BUSI (Breast Ultrasound Images Dataset) and CBIS-DDSM (Curated Breast Imaging Subset of the Digital Database for Screening Mammography). We show that adaptation improves performance on IN and close-OOD data but often reduces performance on far-OOD data. Full fine-tuning provides the best tradeoff, while encoder-only LoRA is the strongest parameter-efficient alternative, outperforming standard LoRA and VPT under far-OOD shifts. Using Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA), we show that far-OOD degradation is strongly associated with drift in decoder representations, whereas encoder similarity alone does not explain robustness. This suggests encoder-only LoRA provides stronger robustness than standard LoRA by adapting the encoder to distribution shift in visual features, while preserving the decoder pathway. We further show that random 0-100 pixel jitter on prompts produces more robust and better performing models. We thus conclude that robust MedSAM adaptation requires the combined consideration of prompt noise exposure, domain shift, and representation preservation. We release our code: https://github.com/ImSounic/medsam-vpt
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.
Builds on
17 of 27 references.
References · 17
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
- 2022Visual Prompt Tuningcited by 1,681
- 2019Skin Lesion Analysis Toward Melanoma Detection 2018: A Challenge Hosted by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC)cited by 669
- 2023Segment Anything Model for Medical Image Analysis: an Experimental Studycited by 291
- 2023SAM-Med3D: Towards General-purpose Segmentation Models for Volumetric Medical Imagescited by 107
- 2025MedSAM2: Segment Anything in 3D Medical Images and Videoscited by 96
- 2023SAM on Medical Images: A Comprehensive Study on Three Prompt Modescited by 82
- 2023Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Medical Image Analysis: The Missed Opportunitycited by 56
- 2023SAM Meets Robotic Surgery: An Empirical Study on Generalization, Robustness and Adaptationcited by 30
- 2025OpenMIBOOD: Open Medical Imaging Benchmarks for Out-Of-Distribution Detectioncited by 14
- 2023DVPT: Dynamic Visual Prompt Tuning of Large Pre-trained Models for Medical Image Analysiscited by 11
5 more
- 2024Robust Box Prompt based SAM for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 9
- 2023On the Out of Distribution Robustness of Foundation Models in Medical Image Segmentationcited by 6
- 2024Beyond Pixel-Wise Supervision for Medical Image Segmentation: From Traditional Models to Foundation Modelscited by 4
- 2025Prompt-Tuning SAM: From Generalist to Specialist with only 2048 Parameters and 16 Training Imagescited by 3
- 2026RobustMedSAM: Degradation-Resilient Medical Image Segmentation via Robust Foundation Model Adaptationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.