Architecture Analysis and Benchmarking of 3D U-Shaped Deep Learning Models for Thoracic Anatomical Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent rising interests in patient-specific thoracic surgical planning and simulation require efficient and robust creation of digital anatomical models from automatic medical image segmentation algorithms. Deep learning (DL) is now state-of-the-art in various radiological tasks, and U-shaped DL models have particularly excelled in medical image segmentation since the inception of the 2D UNet. To date, many variants of U-shaped models have been proposed by the integration of different attention mechanisms and network configurations. Systematic benchmark studies which analyze the architecture of these models by leveraging the recent development of the multi-label databases, can provide valuable insights for clinical deployment and future model designs, but such studies are still rare. We conduct the first systematic benchmark study for variants of 3D U-shaped models (3DUNet, STUNet, AttentionUNet, SwinUNETR, FocalSegNet, and a novel 3D SwinUnet with four variants) with a focus on CT-based anatomical segmentation for thoracic surgery. Our study systematically examines the impact of different attention mechanisms, the number of resolution stages, and network configurations on segmentation accuracy and computational complexity. To allow cross-reference with other recent benchmarking studies, we also included a performance assessment of the BTCV abdominal structural segmentation. With the STUNet ranking at the top, our study demonstrated the value of CNN-based U-shaped models for the investigated tasks and the benefit of residual blocks in network configuration designs to boost segmentation performance. The code and trained model weights from the study can be found at <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/HealthX-Lab/DeepSegThoracic</uri>.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".