Multiscale Switch for Semi-Supervised and Contrastive Learning in Medical Ultrasound Image Segmentation
Authors: Jingguo Qu, Xinyang Han, Yao Pu, Man-Lik Chui, Simon Takadiyi Gunda, Ziman Chen, Jing Qin, Ann Dorothy King, Winnie Chiu-Wing Chu, Jing Cai, Michael Tin-Cheung Ying
Organizations: Department of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China · Centre for Smart Health and School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China · Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Medical ultrasound image segmentation faces significant challenges due to limited labeled data and characteristic imaging artifacts including speckle noise and low-contrast boundaries. While semi-supervised learning (SSL) approaches have emerged to address data scarcity, existing methods suffer from suboptimal unlabeled data utilization and lack robust feature representation mechanisms. In this paper, we propose Switch, a novel SSL framework with two key innovations: (1) Multiscale Switch (MSS) strategy that employs hierarchical patch mixing to achieve uniform spatial coverage; (2) Frequency Domain Switch (FDS) with contrastive learning that performs amplitude switching in Fourier space for robust feature representations. Our framework integrates these components within a teacher-student architecture to effectively leverage both labeled and unlabeled data. Comprehensive evaluation across six diverse ultrasound datasets (lymph nodes, breast lesions, thyroid nodules, and prostate) demonstrates consistent superiority over state-of-the-art methods. At 5% labeling ratio, Switch achieves remarkable improvements: 80.04% Dice on LN-INT, 85.52% Dice on DDTI, and 83.48% Dice on Prostate datasets, with our semi-supervised approach even exceeding fully supervised baselines. The method maintains parameter efficiency (1.8M parameters) while delivering superior performance, validating its effectiveness for resource-constrained medical imaging applications. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/jinggqu/Switch
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: A comparison of model performance between previous semi-supervised SOTAs and the proposed Switch method on the lymph node dataset (LN-INT). Our method achieved the best results across five data labeling ratios (i.e. models were trained using only part of the ground truth).
Fig. 2: Overview of our proposed method. fs and ft are the student and teacher network, respectively. Stage 1 : The system splits labeled data into two subsets ( x1 , x2 ) and unlabeled data into two subsets ( u1 , u2 ), generates pseudo-labels for unlabeled images using ft , creates spatial masks for patch-based mixing, and combines unlabeled base images with labeled patches to create mixed training samples for semi-supervised learning. Stage 2 : The system performs amplitude switching between labeled and unlabeled image batches in the frequency domain, creates new mixed images using the same spatial masks from MSS, and applies CL to align feature representations between original and frequency-switched mixed images, while enforcing consistency regularization between their model predictions to enhance semi-supervised learning robustness. More details of MSS and FDS modules can be found in Figure 3 and Figure 4 .
Fig. 3: Overview of multiscale switch mechanism. M represents the binary mask with p coarse patches and q fine patches, while ∼M refers to its complement. The white areas in both M and ∼M stand for True, and the pixel at the corresponding position will be retained after multiplication. Vice versa for black regions.
Fig. 4: Overview of frequency domain switch approach. x and u are decomposed into amplitude ( Ax,Au ) and phase ( Px,Pu ) domain by fast Fourier transform ( F ). The frequency region ( R ) in amplitude domain is switched between Ax and Au , and then the pair of xr and ur are reconstructed by inverse fast Fourier transform ( F−1 ). The relative difference of ( x,xr ) and ( u,ur ) made by FDS is shown in the dotted box.
Type
Operation
Explanation
None
Identity
No augmentation
Weak
Resize and crop
Randomly resize the image by [0.8, 1.2]
Horizontal flip
Horizontally flips the image
Vertical flip
Vertically flips the image
Strong
Auto contrast
Maximizes (normalize) the image contrast
Gaussian Blur
Blurs the image with a Gaussian kernel
TABLE I: Summary of augmentations.
Dataset
Training
Validation
Testing
Total
LN-INT
1,034
129
129
1,292
LN-EXT
0
0
374
374
BUSI [ 23 ]
518
65
64
647
DDTI [ 24 ]
510
64
63
637
TN3K [ 25 ]
2,304
575
614
3,493
Prostate [ 26 ]
1,937
215
758
2,910
TABLE II: Overview of datasets and partitions.
Method (Venue)
Params
#Label
LN-INT
LN-EXT
BUSI
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
U-Net (MICCAI’15)
1.8 M
5%
59.32
49.55
52.98
17.82
48.92
39.26
62.76
21.64
40.28
30.28
70.27
27.77
MT (NIPS’17)
1.8 M
57.45
47.13
56.84
19.98
48.01
37.84
76.50
29.24
41.06
30.71
76.75
29.52
UA-MT (MICCAI’19)
1.8 M
55.42
45.35
58.75
20.60
50.22
40.34
68.24
24.91
40.30
29.91
74.17
29.58
CCT (CVPR’20)
3.7 M
58.42
48.67
50.37
16.35
47.93
37.38
78.52
30.76
40.72
30.06
75.69
29.12
MC-Net (MICCAI’21)
3.8 M
61.01
51.11
51.70
17.96
50.30
39.62
68.85
25.56
40.12
29.83
73.23
28.05
TABLE III: Experimental results of LN-INT, LN-EXT and BUSI datasets, averaged over three runs. ‘Params’ denotes the number of trainable parameters, and ‘#Label’ refers to the labeled training ratio. The best and second best results are highlighted, with ↑ / ↓ indicating whether higher or lower values are better.
Method (Venue)
Params
#Label
DDTI
TN3K
Prostate
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
U-Net (MICCAI’15)
1.8 M
5%
76.31
62.51
39.49
15.64
54.99
43.77
52.31
20.70
79.84
73.40
36.38
11.28
MT (NIPS’17)
1.8 M
75.74
61.83
41.05
15.89
55.50
44.03
53.10
20.30
78.99
72.06
38.48
12.05
UA-MT (MICCAI’19)
1.8 M
76.17
62.39
42.08
16.23
56.86
45.16
52.82
20.24
78.83
71.61
38.45
12.16
CCT (CVPR’20)
3.7 M
77.50
64.25
45.57
18.79
59.79
48.36
47.54
18.14
79.60
72.73
33.78
10.25
MC-Net (MICCAI’21)
3.8 M
80.88
68.49
32.89
13.16
58.18
46.78
48.81
18.34
79.43
72.94
28.10
8.29
TABLE IV: Experimental results on the DDTI, TN3K, and Prostate datasets, averaged over three runs. ‘Params’ denotes the number of trainable parameters, and ‘#Label’ refers to the labeled training ratio. The best and second best results are highlighted, with ↑ / ↓ indicating whether higher or lower values are better.
Fig. 5: A comparison of IoU values of the proposed method and SOTAs on six datasets with five data labeling ratios. The maximum and minimum IoU values obtained by these methods for each dataset are marked in italics. All labeling ratios are displayed in the five corresponding corners of the radar charts.
Fig. 6: A comparison of IoU values of the proposed method and SOTAs on six datasets with 50% labeled data. IoU values of all methods are displayed above the corresponding bar charts.
Fig. 7: Visualization of the proposed method and SOTAs on LN-INT, LN-EXT, BUSI [ 23 ] , DDTI [ 24 ] , TN3K [ 25 ] and Prostate [ 26 ] datasets with 5% labeled data. The first column shows the original images and Full-sup. refers to the results of U-Net trained in a fully supervised manner ( i.e. , 100% labeled). Regions in red, green and yellow indicate the ground truth, false positive and true positive, respectively.
Fig. 8: UMAP visualization of embedding spaces for projection head and segmentation head using 20 LN-INT test samples. In the projection head, dots of the same color represent feature pairs from original and FDS-reconstructed images, demonstrating their proximity after CL. In the segmentation embedding space, yellow and blue dots denote foreground and background features, respectively.
Exp.
MSS
FDS
Augs.
Cont.
Consist.
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
(a)
59.52
49.86
55.57
18.82
(b)
✓
75.15
66.47
35.98
11.99
(c)
✓
✓
✓
74.17
65.26
36.54
11.64
(d)
✓
✓
✓
75.65
66.91
35.67
11.80
(e)
✓
✓
76.79
68.74
28.42
9.55
(f)
✓
✓
✓
✓
78.24
70.00
29.52
10.30
TABLE V: Ablation study of different modules on the LN dataset with 5% labeled data. Augs., Cont. and Consist. refer to augmentation, contrastive and consistency, respectively.
Fig. 9: Visual comparison of ablation studies on LN-INT dataset with 5% labeled data. The first column shows the original images and (a)-(h) refer to the experiments in Table V . Regions in red, green and yellow indicate the ground truth, false positive and true positive, respectively.
p coarse patches
q fine patches
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
Max. area
1
2
78.32
70.24
27.86
8.79
9/32
1
4
78.32
70.14
29.10
9.28
10/32
2
2
80.04
71.98
26.51
8.35
17/32
2
4
79.70
71.20
29.87
9.52
18/32
3
2
79.20
71.13
29.96
9.34
25/32
3
4
78.76
70.40
33.74
11.00
26/32
TABLE VI: Ablation study of the amount of coarse and fine patches on the LN dataset with 5% labeled data. The Max. area column indicates the maximum ratio of the total image area occupied by all patches without overlapping.
Weak
Strong
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
77.38
69.51
30.32
9.42
✓
79.30
71.32
27.94
9.21
✓
77.14
68.30
35.04
11.33
✓
✓
80.04
71.98
26.51
8.35
TABLE VII: Ablation study of different augmentations on the LN dataset with 5% labeled data.
Weight
Value
Dice ↑
IoU ↑
HD95 ↓
ASD ↓
Contrastive
0.0
77.85
69.70
30.40
10.04
0.05
79.81
71.51
30.91
9.86
0.1
80.04
71.98
26.51
8.35
0.2
79.55
70.96
31.37
10.22
0.5
79.54
71.29
30.29
9.50
Consistency
0.0
78.24
70.00
29.52
10.30
TABLE VIII: Ablation study of contrastive and consistency weights on the LN dataset with 5% labeled data.
Method
LN-INT (10)
LN-EXT
TN3K (23)
Prostate (19)
Dice ↑
HD95 ↓
Dice ↑
HD95 ↓
Dice ↑
HD95 ↓
Dice ↑
HD95 ↓
U-Net
34.68
79.49
29.03
85.52
38.24
75.52
75.83
52.20
BCP
50.49
68.96
39.13
66.44
56.80
46.63
81.63
26.47
ABD
53.10
51.85
41.93
56.28
65.07
36.99
79.80
26.49
β -FFT
52.94
64.62
38.88
60.48
57.86
47.15
78.81
34.53
Switch
66.62
42.04
60.49
42.34
61.84
37.86
82.44
22.64
TABLE IX: Experimental results under the 1% labeled data scenario. Numbers in parentheses refer to the quantity of labeled data.
Fig. 10: Quantitative comparison between BCP and MSS switching strategies. Top : Switching probability heatmaps (10,000 iterations) reveal geometric bias of BCP versus uniform distribution of MSS. Bottom : Gradient magnitude analysis shows MSS ( p =2, q =2) achieves 54.86% lower variance, indicating smoother mixing transitions, while MSS ( p =2, q =10, similar area compares to BCP 2/3 strategy) also gains 8.64% improvement. Results demonstrate MSS superiority in sample uniformity.
Semi-supervised medical image segmentation uses labeled and unlabeled scans to train models that delineate organs, lesions, and tissues with fewer annotations.
In the era of information explosion, efficiently leveraging large-scale unlabeled data while minimizing the reliance on high-quality pixel-level annotations remains a critical challenge in the field of medical imaging. Semi-supervised learning (SSL) enhances the utilization of unlabeled data by facilitating knowledge transfer, significantly improving the performance of fully supervised models and emerging as a highly promising research direction in medical image analysis. Inspired by the ability of Vision Foundation Models (e.g., SAM-2) to provide rich prior knowledge, we propose SSS (Semi-Supervised SAM-2), a novel approach that leverages SAM-2's robust feature extraction capabilities to uncover latent knowledge in unlabeled medical images, thus effectively enhancing feature support for fully supervised medical image segmentation. Specifically, building upon the single-stream "weak-to-strong" consistency regularization framework, this paper introduces a Discriminative Feature Enhancement (DFE) mechanism to further explore the feature discrepancies introduced by various data augmentation strategies across multiple views. By leveraging feature similarity and dissimilarity across multi-scale augmentation techniques, the method reconstructs and models the features, thereby effectively optimizing the salient regions. Furthermore, a prompt generator is developed that integrates Physical Constraints with a Sliding Window (PCSW) mechanism to generate input prompts for unlabeled data, fulfilling SAM-2's requirement for additional prompts. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method for semi-supervised medical image segmentation on two multi-label datasets, i.e., ACDC and BHSD. Notably, SSS achieves an average Dice score of 53.15 on BHSD, surpassing the previous state-of-the-art method by +3.65 Dice. Code will be available at https://github.com/AIGeeksGroup/SSS.
Semi-supervised learning (SSL) has emerged as a promising paradigm for breast ultrasound (BUS) image segmentation, but it often suffers from unstable pseudo labels under extremely limited annotations, leading to inaccurate supervision and degraded performance. Recent vision-language models (VLMs) provide a new opportunity for pseudo-label generation, yet their effectiveness on BUS images remains limited because domain-specific prompts are difficult to transfer. To address this issue, we propose a semi-supervised framework with training-free pseudo-label generation and label refinement. By leveraging simple appearance-based descriptions (e.g., dark oval), our method enables cross-domain structural transfer between natural and medical images, allowing VLMs to generate structurally consistent pseudo labels. These pseudo labels are used to warm up a static teacher that captures global structural priors of breast lesions. Combined with an exponential moving average teacher, we further introduce uncertainty entropy weighted fusion and adaptive uncertainty-guided reverse contrastive learning to improve boundary discrimination. Experiments on four BUS datasets demonstrate that our method achieves performance comparable to fully supervised models even with only 2.5% labeled data, significantly outperforming existing SSL approaches. Moreover, the proposed paradigm is readily extensible: for other imaging modalities or diseases, only a global appearance description is required to obtain reliable pseudo supervision, enabling scalable semi-supervised medical image segmentation under limited annotations.
Ruili Li, Jiayi Ding, Ruiyu Li +7
Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai 980-8575, Japan · State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China · Southeast University, School of Cyber Science and Engineering Nanjing, Jiangsu, China +4
Training accurate medical image segmentation models requires large amounts of densely annotated data, which is costly and time-consuming to obtain. Semi-supervised learning (SSL) alleviates this by learning from both abundant unlabeled data and limited labeled data. However, most modern SSL methods rely on pseudolabels for unlabeled data, and typically assess their reliability through model confidence or uncertainty, measures that are self-referential and lack explicit grounding in segmentation quality. Instead, we propose a quality-guided SSL framework that trains a dedicated network to estimate segmentation quality from image-mask pairs. The predictor is trained on variable-quality masks generated through synthetic corruptions augmented with imperfect outputs from partially trained segmentation models, capturing realistic error patterns encountered during training. We integrate the quality predictor into SSL through two complementary mechanisms: a quality-aware regularization loss and a quality-based pseudolabel sample reweighting scheme. We show that our method serves as a drop-in enhancement to existing SSL frameworks. Extensive experiments across five datasets and multiple architectures demonstrate consistent improvements over competing SSL methods, advancing the state-of-the-art in semi-supervised medical image segmentation.
Kumar Abhishek, Ghassan Hamarneh
School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada