Prompt Learning With Bounding Box Constraints for Medical Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pixel-wise annotations are notoriously labourious and costly to obtain in the medical domain. To mitigate this burden, weakly supervised approaches based on bounding box annotations-much easier to acquire-offer a practical alternative. Vision foundation models have recently shown noteworthy segmentation performance when provided with prompts such as points or bounding boxes. Prompt learning exploits these models by adapting them to downstream tasks and automating segmentation, thereby reducing user intervention. However, existing prompt learning approaches depend on fully annotated segmentation masks. This paper proposes a novel framework that combines the representational power of foundation models with the annotation efficiency of weakly supervised segmentation. More specifically, our approach automates prompt generation for foundation models using only bounding box annotations. Our proposed optimization scheme integrates multiple constraints derived from box annotations with pseudo-labels generated by the prompted foundation model. Extensive experiments across multi-modal datasets reveal that, using the Segment Anything Model (SAM) as backbone, our weakly supervised method achieves an average Dice score of 84.90% in a limited data setting, outperforming existing fully-supervised and weakly-supervised approaches.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".