Self-Prompting Polyp Segmentation in Colonoscopy Using Hybrid YOLO-SAM2 Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early diagnosis and treatment of polyps during colonoscopy are essential for reducing the incidence and mortality of Colorectal Cancer (CRC). However, the variability in polyp characteristics and the presence of artifacts in colonoscopy images and videos pose significant challenges for accurate and efficient polyp detection and segmentation. This paper presents a novel approach to polyp segmentation by integrating the Segment Anything Model (SAM 2) with the YOLOv8 model. Our method leverages YOLOv8’s bounding box predictions to autonomously generate input prompts for SAM 2, thereby reducing the need for manual annotations. We conducted exhaustive tests on five benchmark colonoscopy image datasets and two colonoscopy video datasets, demonstrating that our method exceeds state-of-the-art models in both image and video segmentation tasks. Notably, our approach achieves high segmentation accuracy using only bounding box annotations, significantly reducing annotation time and effort. This advancement holds promise for enhancing the efficiency and scalability of polyp detection in clinical settings https://github.com/sajjad-sh33/YOLO_SAM2.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".