Revisiting foundation models for cell instance segmentation
Authors: Anwai Archit, Constantin Pape
Organizations: Georg-August-University Göttingen, Institute of Computer Science · CAIMed - Lower Saxony Center for AI & Causal Methods in Medicine, Göttingen · Cluster of Excellence Multiscale Bioimaging (MBExC), Georg-August-University Göttingen
Cell segmentation is a fundamental task in microscopy image analysis. Several foundation models for cell segmentation have been introduced, virtually all of them are extensions of Segment Anything Model (SAM), improving it for microscopy data. Recently, SAM2 and SAM3 have been published, further improving and extending the capabilities of general-purpose segmentation foundation models. Here, we comprehensively evaluate foundation models for cell segmentation (CellPoseSAM, CellSAM, μSAM) and for general-purpose segmentation (SAM, SAM2, SAM3) on a diverse set of (light) microscopy datasets, for tasks including cell, nucleus and organoid segmentation. Furthermore, we introduce a new instance segmentation strategy called automatic prompt generation (APG) that can be used to further improve SAM-based microscopy foundation models. APG consistently improves segmentation results for μSAM, which is used as the base model, and is competitive with the state-of-the-art model CellPoseSAM. Moreover, our work provides important lessons for adaptation strategies of SAM-style models to microscopy and provides a strategy for creating even more powerful microscopy foundation models. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/computational-cell-analytics/micro-sam.
Table 1: SAM3 results for text prompt-based microscopy segmentation. Datasets marked in italic font are part of SAM3’s training data, datasets marked in bold font are not. The results for best performing text prompts per dataset are marked in bold . All reported scores are mean segmentation accuracy for the entire dataset. Prompts resulting in a score <= 0.001 are marked as “ × ”. Prompts that are not applicable to the given segmentation task are marked as “ − ”.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Imaging Modality
Input Dimensions
LIVECell Edlund et al. (2021)
Phase Contrast
2D
OmniPose Cutler et al. (2022)
Phase Contrast & Brightfield
2D
DeepBacs Spahn et al. (2022)
Brightfield & Fluorescence
2D
Usiigaci Tsai et al. (2019)
Phase Contrast
2D
Vicar Vicar et al. (2021)
Quantitative Phase
2D
TOIAM Seiffarth et al. (2024)
Phase Contrast
2D+T
Appendix
Table 2: Description of the different datasets used in our study. For the 3D datasets / 2D+T datasets, we evaluate over individual slices / frames. For the histopathology datasets, the imaging modality describes the staining protocol (in italics) for the images.
Figure 7Figure 8Figure 9Figure 10
Method
Label-Free (Cell)
Fluorescence (Cell)
Fluorescence (Nucleus)
Histopathology (Nucleus)
AMG (SAM)
0.106
0.091
0.283
0.200
AIS
0.480
0.347
0.513
0.390
SAM3
0.269
0.143
0.255
0.331
CellPose 3
0.424
0.218
0.438
0.155
CellPoseSAM
0.544
0.363
0.483
0.418
CellSAM
0.380
0.272
0.386
0.277
Appendix
Table 3: Mean Segmentation Accuracy (mSA) averaged over all datasets for each modality. The best / second / third ranking methods are shown in bold / underline / italics . For histopathology, AIS / APG correspond to the PathoSAM, and μ SAM for others.
Dataset
AMG (SAM)
AIS ( μ SAM)
SAM3
CellPose 3
CellPoseSAM
CellSAM
APG ( μ SAM)
LIVECell
0.075
0.415
0.331
0.414
0.444
0.098
0.437
OmniPose
0.137
0.599
0.356
0.468
0.644
0.531
0.651
DeepBacs
0.057
0.497
0.157
0.455
0.612
0.441
0.586
Usiigaci
0.051
0.353
0.362
0.291
0.445
0.167
0.383
Vicar
0.115
0.411
0.086
0.338
0.458
0.426
0.417
TOIAM
0.009
0.387
0.027
0.837
0.898
0.631
0.701
Appendix
Table 4: Quantitative results on label-free microscopy datasets for cell segmentation: mean segmentation accuracy (mSA) per dataset and method. For each dataset, the best / second / third ranking methods are shown in bold / underline / italics .
Dataset
AMG (SAM)
AIS ( μ SAM)
SAM3
CellPose 3
CellPoseSAM
CellSAM
APG ( μ SAM)
TissueNet
0.069
0.329
0.121
0.154
0.475
0.345
0.324
CellPose
0.147
0.383
0.299
0.431
0.566
0.413
0.416
PlantSeg (Root)
0.091
0.507
0.067
0.076
0.161
0.096
0.489
PlantSeg (Ovules)
0.135
0.341
0.184
0.266
0.331
0.333
0.325
PNAS Arabidopsis
0.145
0.461
0.241
0.411
0.471
0.459
0.462
Covid-IF
0.007
0.317
0.005
0.161
0.333
0.154
0.296
Appendix
Table 5: Quantitative results on fluorescence microscopy datasets for cell segmentation: mean segmentation accuracy per dataset and method. For each dataset, the best / second / third ranking methods are shown in bold / underline / italics .
Dataset
AMG (SAM)
AIS ( μ SAM)
SAM3
CellPose 3
CellPoseSAM
CellSAM
APG ( μ SAM)
DSB
0.331
0.654
0.367
0.484
0.656
0.634
0.665
U20S
0.258
0.786
0.674
0.787
0.787
0.673
0.787
Arvidsson
0.416
0.594
0.297
0.611
0.484
0.434
0.567
BitDepth NucSeg
0.224
0.323
0.182
0.302
0.377
0.168
0.346
IFNuclei
0.293
0.729
0.301
0.404
0.728
0.589
0.749
Dynamic- NuclearNet
0.298
0.592
0.346
0.512
0.379
0.455
0.584
Appendix
Table 6: Quantitative results on fluorescence microscopy datasets for nucleus segmentation: mean segmentation accuracy per dataset and method. For each dataset, the best / second / third ranking methods are shown in bold / underline / italics .
Dataset
AMG (SAM)
AIS (PathoSAM)
SAM3
CellPose 3
CellPoseSAM
CellSAM
APG (PathoSAM)
PanNuke
0.199
0.467
0.341
0.152
0.342
0.244
0.478
IHC TMA
0.236
0.264
0.435
0.297
0.452
0.333
0.272
LynSec
0.233
0.291
0.157
0.163
0.561
0.213
0.314
MoNuSeg
0.182
0.395
0.345
0.125
0.373
0.302
0.394
NuInsSeg
0.161
0.238
0.312
0.144
0.349
0.229
0.239
PUMA
0.232
0.707
0.415
0.101
0.501
0.294
0.712
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative results on histopathology datasets for nucleus segmentation: mean segmentation accuracy per dataset and method. For each dataset, the best / second / third ranking methods are shown in bold / underline / italics .
Accurate delineation of individual cells in microscopy videos is essential for studying cellular dynamics, yet separating touching or overlapping instances remains a persistent challenge. Although foundation-model for segmentation such as SAM have broadened the accessibility of image segmentation, they still struggle to separate nearby cell instances in dense microscopy scenes without extensive prompting. We propose a prompt-free, boundary-aware instance segmentation framework that predicts signed distance functions (SDFs) instead of binary masks, enabling smooth and geometry-consistent modeling of cell contours. A learned sigmoid mapping converts SDFs into probability maps, yielding sharp boundary localization and robust separation of adjacent instances. Training is guided by a unified Modified Hausdorff Distance (MHD) loss that integrates region- and boundary-based terms. Evaluations on both public and private high-throughput microscopy datasets demonstrate improved boundary accuracy and instance-level performance compared to recent SAM-based and foundation-model approaches. Source code is available at: https://github.com/ThomasMendelson/BAISeg.git
Thomas Mendelson, Joshua Francois, Galit Lahav +1
The School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev · Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School
Cell instance segmentation models trained on cell-specific datasets suffer severe performance drops on out-of-distribution cell types, while interactive foundation models overcome this through per-instance prompting at a cost that is prohibitively expensive for histopathology images containing hundreds to thousands of densely packed instances. We introduce Group Prompting, a new paradigm that shifts interactive segmentation from per-instance O(N) to per-type O(T), where a single click per cell type suffices to segment all instances of that type. Our key observation is that the frozen image encoder of the Segment Anything Model (SAM) already clusters same-type cells in its feature space before any prompt is given, and that this clustering holds across staining modalities without any training. Exploiting this property, we propose Chain-of-Prompts (CoP), a training-free framework that recursively expands a single user click by (1) identifying reliable same-type locations through non-parametric gating of multi-scale encoder features, and (2) selecting the most spatially distant reliable point as the next prompt to maximize coverage. On eleven benchmarks, CoP generalizes to both unseen cell types and unseen imaging modalities without any adaptation: with one click per type it retains over 90% of per-instance performance on three cell-type-annotated datasets while surpassing fully-supervised methods, and with one click per image it retains over 95% on eight datasets spanning both H&E and non-H&E imaging. Project Page: https://shjo-april.github.io/Chain-of-Prompts/
Sanghyun Jo, Seo Jin Lee, Seohyung Hong +4
1OGQ, Korea · 2Seoul National University, Korea · 3LG CNS, Korea
Deep learning underlies most modern approaches and tools in computer vision, including biomedical imaging. However, for interactive semantic segmentation (often called pixel classification in this context) and interactive object-level classification (object classification), feature-based shallow learning remains widely used. This is due to the diversity of data in this domain, the lack of large pretraining datasets, and the need for computational and label efficiency. In contrast, state-of-the-art tools for many other vision tasks in microscopy - most notably cellular instance segmentation - already rely on deep learning and have recently benefited substantially from vision foundation models (VFMs), particularly SAM. Here, we investigate whether VFMs can also improve pixel and object classification compared to current approaches. To this end, we evaluate several VFMs, including general-purpose models (SAM, SAM2, SAM3, DINOv3) and domain-specific ones (μSAM, PathoSAM, KRONOS), in combination with shallow learning and attentive probing on five diverse and challenging datasets. Our results demonstrate consistent improvements over hand-crafted features and provide a clear pathway toward practical improvements. Furthermore, our study establishes a benchmark for VFMs in microscopy and informs future developments in this area.
Carolin Teuber, Anwai Archit, Tobias Boothe +3
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Institute of Computer Science · Department of Tissue Dynamics and Regeneration, Max Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, Göttingen · Georg-August-University Göttingen, Faculty of Biology and Psychology +3