Conventional few-shot medical image segmentation (FSMIS) approaches face performance bottlenecks that hinder broader clinical applicability. Although the Segment Anything Model (SAM) exhibits strong category-agnostic segmentation capabilities, its direct application to medical images often leads to over-segmentation due to ambiguous anatomical boundaries. In this paper, we reformulate SAM-based FSMIS as a prompt localization task and propose FoB (Focus on Background), a background-centric prompt generator that provides accurate background prompts to constrain SAM's over-segmentation. Specifically, FoB bridges the gap between segmentation and prompt localization by category-agnostic generation of support background prompts and localizing them directly in the query image. To address the challenge of prompt localization for novel categories, FoB models rich contextual information to capture foreground-background spatial dependencies. Moreover, inspired by the inherent structural patterns of background prompts in medical images, FoB models this structure as a constraint to progressively refine background prompt predictions. Experiments on three diverse medical image datasets demonstrate that FoB outperforms other baselines by large margins, achieving state-of-the-art performance on FSMIS, and exhibiting strong cross-domain generalization. Our code is available at https://github.com/primebo1/FoB_SAM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Methodological motivation. We observe that without accurate background prompts, SAM tends to over-segment ambiguous boundaries, highlighting the necessity of precise background guidance. (b) Technical motivation. Prior methods extract prompts from a foreground segment map, yielding only reliable foreground prompts. We reformulate SAM-based FSMIS as a prompt localization task, focusing specifically on precise background prompt identification to limit SAM’s over-segmentation.
Figure 2: The overall architecture of the proposed FoB model for FSMIS, which consists of three collaboratively designed modules. BPPC prepares prompt prototypes for subsequent matching and localization. BCM models the dependency between background prompts and the foreground to produce coarse localization. SPR (see Figure 3 ) imposes structural constraints in the feature space to refine background prompt predictions from BCM. FoB is trained independently of SAM and serves as a plug-and-play prompt generator during inference.
Figure 3: Schema of Structure-guided Prompt Refinement.
Methods
Abd-MRI
Abd-CT
Skin-DS
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg.
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg.
Mel
Nev
SK
Avg.
Setting I
ALPNet [ 6 ]
76.1
85.18
81.92
72.18
78.84
78.29
71.81
72.36
70.96
73.35
66.32
61.65
59.57
62.51
RPT [ 60 ]
82.86
89.82
80.72
76.37
82.44
82.57
72.58
77.05
79.13
77.83
77.81
75.42
70.28
74.50
GMRD [ 9 ]
81.42
90.12
83.96
76.09
82.90
79.6
74.46
81.7
78.31
78.52
79.23
72.78
71.32
74.44
PGRNet [ 17 ]
83.27
87.44
81.44
81.72
83.47
82.48
79.88
74.23
72.09
77.17
71.39
70.21
65.87
69.16
ProtoSAM [ 4 ]
83.14
82.36
82.75
77.98
81.56
84.79
75.67
71.31
70.24
75.50
73.61
76.26
68.37
72.75
Table 1: Comparison with SOTA methods (in Dice score %) on Abd-MRI, Abd-CT, and Skin-DS under Settings I and II. The best values are shown in bold font. Indicator “–” means that the original paper did not report results or release the code for a fair comparison.
Methods
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg.
CT → MRI
RobustEMD [ 59 ]
60.16
70.26
66.34
53.71
62.61
FAMNet [ 5 ]
73.01
74.68
57.28
58.21
65.79
FoB + SAM
75.05
79.57
70.38
68.21
73.30
MRI → CT
RobustEMD [ 59 ]
69.82
50.34
63.79
59.88
60.95
FAMNet [ 5 ]
73.57
61.89
57.79
65.78
64.75
FoB + SAM
81.36
58.81
57.18
70.71
67.02
Table 2: Comparison with SOTA methods (in Dice score %) under cross-domain setting using abdominal datasets. The best values are shown in bold font.
Figure 4: Qualitative results of our method across different datasets. See Appendix D for more visualizations.
BPPC
BCM
SPR
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg
✓
81.58
83.21
79.88
79.38
81.01
✓
✓
84.2
86.27
82.13
81.35
83.49
✓
✓
84.87
87.61
84.01
83.99
85.12
✓
✓
✓
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
Table 3: Ablation studies of model components on Dice score (%). The best results are indicated in bold.
Figure 5: Analysis of the values of Nf and Np .
Lheat
Lcoor
Lfore
Lrac
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg
✓
✓
✓
59.24
76.92
77.63
68.01
70.45
✓
✓
✓
34.01
33.92
35.17
37.95
35.26
✓
✓
✓
83.67
83.71
83.02
85.33
83.93
✓
✓
✓
✓
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
Table 4: Ablation studies of the loss functions on Dice score (%). The best results are indicated in bold.
Figure 6: Visualization of the effectiveness of SPR.
Figure 7: Comparison of the previous method, ProtoSAM [ 3 ] (left), and our method (right). ProtoSAM connects an existing FSMIS model with SAM by extracting prompts from the coarse segmentation output of the FSMIS model, which often fails to provide accurate background prompts due to inherent flaws. In contrast, our method predicts both precise background and foreground prompts, improving SAM’s use in medical image segmentation.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Previous prompt extraction methods based on existing FSMIS model outputs. (a) Original image. (b) Prediction confidence-based method, which selects high-confidence foreground and background points as prompts. (c) Coarse binary mask-based method, which randomly samples prompts within the predicted foreground and background regions of the mask. The yellow line indicates the ground truth. The arrows in (b) and (c) indicate incorrect prompt locations.
Model
mDice
Param.
Latency
(M)
(ms/img)
FoB-Transformer
86.21
49.31
57.49
FoB-Mamba
85.31
49.90
33.95
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of Transformer- and Mamba-based implementations of the BCM module. “mDice” denotes the mean Dice score (%), and “Param.” indicates the number of parameters.
r
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
19
82.12
83.41
82.28
84.01
82.96
15
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
11
86.37
87.33
86.12
84.93
86.19
7
79.21
82.66
84.76
80.47
81.78
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study (Dice score % reported) on the impact of the dilation kernel size r . Smaller r moves background prompts closer to the foreground.
Figure 9: Visualization of support background prompts generated with different r in BPPC. Best viewed under large zoom.
Setting
Abd-CT
Abd-MRI
Skin-DS
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg.
Liv
RK
LK
Spl
Avg.
Mel
Nev
SK
Avg.
Setting I
69.51
65.79
73.01
57.93
66.56
71.54
78.57
80.46
68.81
74.85
71.59
75.34
68.75
71.89
Setting II
68.61
64.30
67.67
58.68
64.82
67.99
75.57
74.47
62.86
70.22
72.91
71.25
68.49
70.88
Appendix
Table 7: Segmentation results of MedSAM when prompted by FoB. Bounding box prompts are obtained by computing the minimum enclosing rectangle of the background prompts generated by FoB. These results further validate that medical SAMs are in fact unsuitable for FSMIS tasks, due to inherent architectural limitations and potential violations of the few-shot learning protocol.
σ
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
8
80.02
84.94
85.78
80.21
82.74
4
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
2
79.76
75.56
75.97
79.91
77.80
1
76.33
61.93
64.46
62.57
66.32
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study (Dice score % used) on the impact of the standard deviation σ for generating heatmaps.
k
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
16
84.96
76.80
88.33
83.89
83.50
8
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
4
87.50
84.64
85.58
86.19
85.98
2
81.05
85.40
88.63
83.62
84.68
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study (in Dice score %) on the impact of the deformable receptive field size k in SPR.
κ
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
7
82.62
83.99
83.94
77.67
82.06
5
84.43
86.68
86.63
83.75
85.37
3
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
1
84.77
84.17
87.42
84.68
85.26
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study (Dice score % used) on the impact of the number of deformable iterations κ in SPR.
T
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
0.95
88.75
86.03
83.99
85.27
86.01
0.90
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
0.85
87.94
83.77
85.62
82.47
84.95
0.80
87.38
84.55
84.01
81.79
84.43
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation study (Dice score % used) on the impact of the foreground prompt sampling threshold T .
τ
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
0.7
81.74
86.31
85.72
80.09
83.47
0.5
84.96
86.79
84.94
82.01
84.68
0.3
87.24
86.37
86.97
83.17
85.94
0.1
86.51
86.51
87.29
84.54
86.21
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation study (Dice score % used) on the impact of the temperature τ in the RAC loss.
Figure 10: Evolution of the foreground probability map over training epochs. As training proceeds, the foreground prediction becomes highly accurate even under ambiguous boundaries.
Figure 11: Visualization of matching robustness of the BCM module under significant background variations.
Graph
Liver
RK
LK
Spleen
Mean
No A
81.32
87.81
82.43
78.55
82.53
Aring only
84.99
88.26
84.09
78.95
84.07
Aada only
83.87
87.00
84.88
77.39
83.29
Aada+Aring
85.61
88.18
84.76
79.31
84.46
Appendix
Table 13: Ablation study (Dice score % used) on different graph construction strategies.
Figure 12: Illustrative examples of superpixel-based pseudo labels on Skin-DS.
Figure 13: Performance curves of FoB & its variants on 3 datasets.
Figure 14: Qualitative segmentation results of our method on Skin-DS.
Figure 15: Qualitative effect of SPR on Abd-CT. Our proposed FoB with structure-aware refinement (w/ SPR) significantly outperforms the counterpart that solely uses BCM-predicted prompt sets (w/o SPR).
Figure 16: Visualization of prompts generated by the proposed FoB. Rows 1–3 correspond to Abd-CT, rows 4–6 to Abd-MRI, and rows 7–9 to Skin-DS. FoB produces highly reliable background prompts that play a crucial role in constraining SAM’s over-segmentation.
Figure 17: Qualitative comparison of segmentation results on Abd-MRI (upper) and Abd-CT (lower).
Few-shot medical image segmentation (FSMIS) has achieved notable progress, yet most existing methods mainly rely on semantic correspondences from scarce annotations while under-utilizing a key property of medical imagery: anatomical targets exhibit repeatable high-frequency morphology (e.g., boundary geometry and spatial layout) across patients and acquisitions. We propose RAP, a training-free framework that retrieves, adapts, and prompts Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM2) for FSMIS. First, RAP retrieves morphologically compatible supports from an archive using DINOv3 features to reduce brittleness in single-support choice. Second, it adapts the retrieved support mask to the query by fitting boundary-aware structural cues, yielding an anatomy-consistent pre-mask under domain shifts. Third, RAP converts the pre-mask into prompts by sampling positive points via Voronoi partitioning and negative points via sector-based sampling, and feeds them into SAM2 for final refinement without any fine-tuning. Extensive experiments on multiple medical segmentation benchmarks show that RAP consistently surpasses prior FSMIS baselines and achieves state-of-the-art performance. Overall, RAP demonstrates that explicit structural fitting combined with retrieval-augmented prompting offers a simple and effective route to robust training-free few-shot medical segmentation.
Zhihao Mao, Bangpu Chen
School of Computer Science, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
Few-shot medical image segmentation (FS-MIS) aims to segment novel regions of interest (ROIs) from a few annotated support examples. Despite rapid progress, existing FS-MIS solutions span diverse paradigms but are evaluated under inconsistent settings, leaving their relative effectiveness unclear. We introduce FAME, a unified benchmark for evaluating FS-MIS solutions, covering specialists, SAM-based methods, CLIP-based methods, and MLLM-based methods. FAME contains 14,958 test samples across 7 anatomical sites, 9 imaging modalities, and 14 ROI categories, and evaluates models under zero-shot and ten-shot settings with additional assessment of target-absence recognition and generalization under covariate and semantic shifts. Our evaluation reveals several findings. First, effective few-shot segmentation depends on how models exploit support examples: direct visual adaptation generally outperforms prompt-based strategies. Second, increasing support examples improves performance only when models can effectively utilize them. Third, semantic transfer remains substantially more challenging than imaging-domain adaptation, and strong localization ability does not necessarily imply reliable target-absence recognition. We hope FAME provides a comprehensive understanding of current FS-MIS solutions and facilitates the development of more effective and reliable few-shot medical segmentation methods.
Segmentation models such as Segment Anything Model (SAM) and SAM2 achieve strong prompt-driven zero-shot performance. However, their training on natural images limits domain transfer to medical data. Consequently, accurate segmentation typically requires extensive fine-tuning and expert-designed prompts. We propose DiffuSAM, a diffusion-based adaptation of SAM2 for prompt-free medical image segmentation. Our framework synthesizes SAM2-compatible segmentation mask-like embeddings via a lightweight diffusion-prior from off-the-shelf frozen SAM2 image features. The generated embeddings are integrated into SAM2's mask decoder to produce accurate segmentations, thereby eliminating the need for user prompts. The diffusion prior is further conditioned on previously segmented slices, enforcing spatial consistency across volumes. Evaluated on the BTCV and CHAOS datasets for CT and MRI under Source-Free Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (SF-UDA) and Few-Shot settings, DiffuSAM achieves competitive performance with efficient training and inference. Code is available upon request from the corresponding author.
Tal Grossman, Noa Cahan, Lev Ayzenberg +1
School of Electrical Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Israel · School of Biomedical Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Israel