Occlusion, where target structures are partially hidden by surgical instruments or overlapping tissues, remains a critical yet underexplored challenge for foundation segmentation models in clinical endoscopy. We introduce OccSAM-Bench, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate SAM-family models under controlled, synthesized surgical occlusion. Our framework simulates two occlusion types (i.e., surgical tool overlay and cutout) across three calibrated severity levels on three public polyp datasets. We propose a novel three-region evaluation protocol that decomposes segmentation performance into full, visible-only, and invisible targets. This metric exposes behaviors that standard amodal evaluation obscures, revealing two distinct model archetypes: Occluder-Aware models (SAM, SAM 2, SAM 3, MedSAM3), which prioritize visible tissue delineation and reject instruments, and Occluder-Agnostic models (MedSAM, MedSAM2), which confidently predict into occluded regions. SAM-Med2D aligns with neither and underperforms across all conditions. Ultimately, our results demonstrate that occlusion robustness is not uniform across architectures, and model selection must be driven by specific clinical intent-whether prioritizing conservative visible-tissue segmentation or the amodal inference of hidden anatomy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: OccSAM-Bench: evaluating segmentation under surgical occlusion. Clinical endoscopy often involves partial occlusion of target anatomy by surgical instruments. OccSAM-Bench simulates such conditions by overlaying surgical tools onto polyp images to create controlled occlusions. Models are evaluated using a three-region protocol that separates visible , invisible (occluded), and full masks, revealing behaviors that standard full-mask evaluation alone cannot capture.
Figure 2: OccSAM-Bench overview. Left: Surgical-tool occlusions are simulated by pasting instrument masks onto polyp images from three colonoscopy datasets. Right: SAM-family models exhibit two behaviors under occlusion: Occluder-Aware models segment visible tissue while rejecting the instrument, whereas Occluder-Agnostic models predict through the occluder. Both can achieve similar full-mask scores, showing that standard evaluation obscures these differences.
Dataset
Modality
Object
Masks
CVC-300 [ 26 ]
Endoscopy
Polyp
60
CVC-ColonDB [ 24 ]
Endoscopy
Polyp
380
ETIS-LaribPolypDB [ 22 ]
Endoscopy
Polyp
196
Table 1: Summary of polyp segmentation datasets used in our benchmark.
Setting
Model
Year
Backbone / Initialization
Training Scale
Data Type
General-purpose
SAM [ 11 ]
2023
ViT-H
11M images, 1B masks
Natural 2D images
SAM 2 [ 19 ]
2024
Hiera-L
50.9K videos, 642K masklets
Natural images + videos
SAM 3 [ 1 ]
2026
VLP-based encoder
5.2M HQ images, 52.5K videos
Natural images + videos (open-vocab)
Medical-adapted
MedSAM [ 14 ]
2023
SAM (ViT-H) fine-tuned
1.6M medical images
Medical 2D images
SAM-Med2D [ 3 ]
2023
SAM (ViT-H) + PEFT
4.6M images, 19.7M masks
Medical 2D images
MedSAM2 [ 29 ]
2024
SAM2-Tiny fine-tuned
455K 3D pairs, 76K frames
Medical 3D images + video
Table 2: Summary of evaluated models. All models are assessed in a zero-shot manner, i.e., without fine-tuning or adaptation on the target endoscopy datasets.
CVC-300
CVC-ColonDB
ETIS
Model
Clean
Low
Med
High
Δ %
Clean
Low
Med
High
Δ %
Clean
Low
Med
High
Δ %
SAM
.925
.849
.754
.583
37.0
.884
.800
.599
.567
35.9
.910
.807
.662
.552
39.4
SAM 2
.913
.865
.766
.692
24.2
.907
.844
.731
.651
28.2
.907
.838
.736
.621
31.6
SAM 3
.950
.869
.776
.618
35.0
.928
.868
.762
.631
32.0
.935
.845
.762
.603
35.6
MedSAM
.742
.635
.602
.640
13.8
.709
.664
.573
.607
14.5
.778
.724
.622
.588
24.5
SAM-Med2D
.903
.845
.699
.554
38.7
.854
.762
.568
.545
36.2
.837
.780
.610
.502
40.0
Table 3: Full (amodal) DSC under surgical tool occlusion, box prompts. MedSAM2 appears the most robust model under this metric. However, as shown in Sec. 4.2 , this ranking is an artifact: high full-mask scores can result from models that segment through the occluder rather than around it. Δ % (lower is better) is relative degradation from clean to high severity. Best and second best highlighted per column per dataset.
CVC-300
CVC-ColonDB
ETIS
Model
Clean
Low
Med
High
Δ %
Clean
Low
Med
High
Δ %
Clean
Low
Med
High
Δ %
SAM
.925
.886
.914
.388
58.1
.884
.844
.635
.505
42.9
.910
.842
.783
.554
39.1
SAM 2
.913
.910
.894
.662
27.5
.907
.887
.824
.730
19.5
.907
.877
.863
.725
20.1
SAM 3
.950
.913
.931
.724
23.8
.928
.912
.876
.748
19.3
.935
.890
.887
.801
14.3
MedSAM
.742
.669
.579
.302
59.3
.709
.659
.462
.281
60.4
.778
.759
.598
.395
49.2
SAM-Med2D
.903
.889
.780
.345
61.8
.854
.801
.544
.385
54.9
.837
.818
.654
.491
41.3
Table 4: Visible-only DSC under surgical tool occlusion, box prompts. SAM 3 achieves the highest visible-region DSC in the majority of columns, with MedSAM2 and MedSAM3 competitive across datasets. MedSAM and SAM-Med2D show the steepest degradation under increasing occlusion severity. Δ % (lower is better) is relative degradation from clean to high severity. Best and second best highlighted per column per dataset.
CVC-300
CVC-ColonDB
ETIS
Model
Low
Med
High
Low
Med
High
Low
Med
High
SAM
.039
.002
.588
.052
.285
.501
.035
.155
.442
SAM 2
.120
.190
.569
.114
.278
.410
.122
.158
.395
SAM 3
.048
.056
.336
.082
.168
.304
.035
.106
.185
MedSAM
.387
.587
.823
.492
.643
.787
.222
.546
.695
SAM-Med2D
.065
.297
.657
.133
.419
.629
.098
.304
.478
Table 5: Invisible-region DSC under surgical tool occlusion (box prompts). Higher values indicate prediction inside the occluded region. At high severity, scores may be inflated by the large tool footprint and should be interpreted together with visible DSC (Table 4 ). Best and second best are highlighted per column.
Figure 3: Visible-only DSC comparison between Cutout and Surgical Tool occlusions across 3 datasets under increasing severity (Clean, Low, Medium, High) with Box prompts. Left : General SAMs (SAM, SAM 2, SAM 3); Right : Medical SAMs (MedSAM, SAM-Med2D, MedSAM2, MedSAM3). Differences between occlusion types are minimal at low-to-moderate levels but diverge at High severity, where surgical occlusion induces substantially larger degradation.
Figure 4: Visible-mask DSC comparison between Box and Single-Point prompts under increasing occlusion levels (Clean, Low, Medium, High), with surgical tool occlusions. Top row : General SAMs (SAM, SAM 2, SAM 3); bottom row : Medical SAMs (SAM-Med2D, MedSAM2, MedSAM3). Columns correspond to CVC-300, CVC-ColonDB, and ETIS-LaribPolypDB. Box prompting demonstrates consistently higher DSC and more consistent performance across datasets under all occlusion levels.
Model
Prompt
Clean Avg
Occluded Avg
MedSAM
Box
0.7431
0.4872
MedSAM
Point
0.0207
0.0172
MedSAM3
Point
0.8429
0.6840
SAM 3
Point
0.8217
0.7046
Table 6: Visible-only DSC under box vs. point prompts. Clean Avg is performance on clean images; Occluded Avg averages Low, Medium, and High occlusion severities across both occlusion types. MedSAM collapses under point prompting but remains functional with box prompts.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.93
10.05
0.85
38.30
0.75
62.17
0.58
73.95
SAM 2
0.91
8.48
0.87
35.34
0.77
61.64
0.69
65.53
SAM 3
0.95
4.98
0.87
35.51
0.78
62.42
0.62
60.11
MedSAM
0.74
24.43
0.63
53.34
0.60
68.74
0.64
64.27
SAM-Med2D
0.90
12.78
0.84
36.47
0.70
66.66
0.55
75.47
Appendix
Table 7: Segmentation performance on CVC-300 under Surgical Tool occlusion using Box prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.93
10.05
0.89
17.48
0.69
35.73
0.61
36.59
SAM 2
0.91
8.48
0.92
15.81
0.77
31.93
0.68
31.15
SAM 3
0.95
4.98
0.94
6.95
0.89
19.67
0.87
27.55
MedSAM
0.74
24.43
0.68
30.31
0.60
37.29
0.64
32.04
SAM-Med2D
0.90
12.78
0.87
20.81
0.75
30.07
0.68
32.14
Appendix
Table 8: Segmentation performance on CVC-300 under Cutout occlusion using Box prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.49
165.54
0.23
468.78
0.18
517.32
0.39
206.37
SAM 2
0.83
44.03
0.66
130.22
0.59
144.94
0.49
130.24
SAM 3
0.93
6.71
0.73
105.00
0.52
112.44
0.50
129.06
MedSAM
0.02
89.81
0.00
180.03
0.01
177.41
0.02
150.37
SAM-Med2D
0.68
40.67
0.57
79.31
0.38
99.08
0.51
99.78
Appendix
Table 9: Segmentation performance on CVC-300 under Surgical Tool occlusion using Point prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.49
165.54
0.29
227.06
0.34
146.29
0.38
122.88
SAM 2
0.83
44.03
0.78
33.04
0.54
55.09
0.52
50.47
SAM 3
0.93
6.71
0.80
30.49
0.75
41.28
0.68
46.37
MedSAM
0.02
89.81
0.03
81.26
0.01
82.60
0.02
72.76
SAM-Med2D
0.68
40.67
0.54
38.21
0.45
45.54
0.46
51.26
Appendix
Table 10: Segmentation performance on CVC-300 under Cutout occlusion using Point prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.88
20.48
0.80
86.41
0.60
110.62
0.57
95.72
SAM 2
0.91
16.24
0.84
67.70
0.73
80.37
0.65
71.77
SAM 3
0.93
13.51
0.87
62.71
0.76
72.79
0.63
71.57
MedSAM
0.71
36.73
0.66
88.09
0.57
90.08
0.61
77.75
SAM-Med2D
0.85
28.24
0.76
77.80
0.57
97.07
0.54
79.34
Appendix
Table 11: Segmentation performance on CVC-ColonDB under Surgical Tool occlusion using Box prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.88
20.48
0.82
30.02
0.66
49.17
0.58
59.09
SAM 2
0.91
16.24
0.88
23.22
0.77
39.30
0.66
45.02
SAM 3
0.93
13.51
0.91
14.53
0.90
29.74
0.68
34.97
MedSAM
0.71
36.73
0.65
40.02
0.58
45.92
0.65
42.88
SAM-Med2D
0.85
28.24
0.81
31.89
0.71
41.60
0.61
46.97
Appendix
Table 12: Segmentation performance on CVC-ColonDB under Cutout occlusion using Box prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.32
248.89
0.26
496.00
0.24
439.15
0.34
305.62
SAM 2
0.74
72.05
0.56
241.01
0.43
248.51
0.45
177.26
SAM 3
0.78
50.32
0.65
132.18
0.49
170.44
0.43
155.95
MedSAM
0.02
133.46
0.02
265.20
0.02
252.97
0.02
194.77
SAM-Med2D
0.53
67.91
0.40
155.28
0.35
172.58
0.45
133.59
Appendix
Table 13: Segmentation performance on CVC-ColonDB under Surgical Tool occlusion using Point prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.32
248.89
0.27
238.48
0.29
189.87
0.46
106.36
SAM 2
0.74
72.05
0.66
73.48
0.55
80.03
0.51
89.63
SAM 3
0.78
50.32
0.58
24.94
0.50
90.58
0.58
154.00
MedSAM
0.02
133.46
0.02
125.80
0.02
116.01
0.02
118.44
SAM-Med2D
0.53
67.91
0.43
71.74
0.35
79.62
0.39
81.40
Appendix
Table 14: Segmentation performance on CVC-ColonDB under Cutout occlusion using Point prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.91
33.13
0.81
45.30
0.66
84.53
0.55
91.15
SAM 2
0.91
33.18
0.84
48.94
0.74
70.69
0.62
82.04
SAM 3
0.94
22.15
0.84
32.71
0.76
66.51
0.60
66.48
MedSAM
0.78
47.40
0.72
46.89
0.62
71.77
0.59
76.70
SAM-Med2D
0.84
52.78
0.78
46.87
0.61
77.94
0.50
87.52
Appendix
Table 15: Segmentation performance on ETIS-LaribPolypDB under Surgical Tool occlusion using Box prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.91
33.13
0.82
50.09
0.68
79.46
0.63
92.08
SAM 2
0.91
33.18
0.88
43.65
0.75
70.49
0.66
79.74
SAM 3
0.94
22.15
0.92
31.75
0.86
60.73
0.77
69.34
MedSAM
0.78
47.40
0.70
55.99
0.67
69.33
0.67
68.51
SAM-Med2D
0.84
52.78
0.79
57.14
0.72
71.58
0.62
81.02
Appendix
Table 16: Segmentation performance on ETIS-LaribPolypDB under Cutout occlusion using Box prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.46
405.77
0.28
503.74
0.28
414.99
0.32
296.23
SAM 2
0.69
225.01
0.57
220.11
0.44
245.45
0.40
201.71
SAM 3
0.75
125.54
0.66
133.30
0.48
161.10
0.44
164.78
MedSAM
0.02
232.68
0.03
180.45
0.03
175.92
0.02
192.56
SAM-Med2D
0.67
112.44
0.58
102.98
0.42
132.24
0.44
134.33
Appendix
Table 17: Segmentation performance on ETIS-LaribPolypDB under Surgical Tool occlusion using Point prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Eval Mode
Model
Clean
Low
Medium
High
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
DSC ↑
HD95 ↓
Full (Amodal)
SAM
0.46
405.77
0.40
382.44
0.32
377.71
0.45
209.90
SAM 2
0.69
225.01
0.65
165.76
0.48
193.81
0.49
188.75
SAM 3
0.75
125.54
0.78
98.36
0.64
140.81
0.61
153.30
MedSAM
0.02
232.68
0.03
198.13
0.03
207.02
0.02
226.62
SAM-Med2D
0.67
112.44
0.58
103.03
0.46
139.07
0.49
136.29
Appendix
Table 18: Segmentation performance on ETIS-LaribPolypDB under Cutout occlusion using Point prompts across clean, low, medium, and high severity levels. Bold and underline denote the best and second best per column, respectively.
Foundation segmentation models such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM) have demonstrated strong generalization across natural images; however, their robustness under clinically realistic medical imaging domain shifts remains insufficiently quantified. We present a systematic slice-level robustness audit of SAM (ViT-B) for spleen segmentation in abdominal CT using 1,051 nonempty slices from 41 volumes in the Medical Segmentation Decathlon. A standardized ground-truth-derived bounding-box protocol was used to isolate encoder robustness from prompt uncertainty. Controlled perturbations simulating inter-scanner variability, including Gaussian noise, blur, contrast scaling, gamma correction, and resolution mismatch, were applied across ten conditions. The clean baseline achieved a mean Dice score of 0.9145 (95% CI: [0.909, 0.919]) with a failure rate of 0.67%. Across all perturbations, the absolute mean ΔDice remained below 0.01. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction identified statistically significant but small-magnitude changes under selected conditions, while McNemar analysis showed no significant increase in failure probability. These findings indicate that SAM exhibits stable segmentation behavior under moderate CT domain shifts, supporting its role as a robust foundation baseline for medical image segmentation research. As health digital twins increasingly incorporate foundation segmentation models for anatomical modeling and organ-level monitoring, formal characterization of robustness under real-world imaging variability is a necessary step toward trustworthy deployment.
Sanghati Basu
Healthcare Informatics, University of Illinois Springfield
Surgical instrument segmentation is a fundamental task for computer-assisted interventions, yet most existing methods rely on pixel-level annotations or manual spatial prompts, which limit scalability and automation. The recently introduced Segment Anything Model 3 (SAM3) offers a pathway to annotation-free, automatic segmentation via text-based prompting; however, the instrument name as a text prompt could not be directly used due to a large domain gap. To overcome these limitations, we propose a two-stage framework that achieves instance-level segmentation without requiring ground truth masks or manual interaction. In the first stage, we leverage a natural-language-aligned generic prompt - "tool" - to produce binary masks using SAM3's zero-shot capability. In the second stage, these masks are extended to instance-level by integrating a vision-language model (Qwen) that is fine-tuned on SAM3-generated masked regions for instrument classification. We evaluate our approach on the EndoVis 2017 and 2018 datasets. Results show that, while our two-stage approach does not reach the performance of current fully supervised methods, it significantly outperforms the direct use of SAM3 for instance-level instrument segmentation with text prompts. Overall, our findings highlight both the limitations and potential of SAM3, suggesting a promising direction toward annotation-free surgical instrument segmentation.
Nakul Poudel, Richard Simon, Cristian A. Linte
Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA · Biomedical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA
Medical image segmentation models built on Segment Anything Model (SAM) achieve strong performance on clean benchmarks, yet their reliability often degrades under realistic image corruptions such as noise, blur, motion artifacts, and modality-specific distortions. Existing approaches address either medical-domain adaptation or corruption robustness, but not both jointly. In SAM, we find that these capabilities are concentrated in complementary modules: the image encoder preserves medical priors, while the mask decoder governs corruption robustness. Motivated by this observation, we propose RobustMedSAM, which adopts module-wise checkpoint fusion by initializing the image encoder from MedSAM and the mask decoder from RobustSAM under a shared ViT-B architecture. We then fine-tune only the mask decoder on 35 medical datasets from MedSegBench, spanning six imaging modalities and 12 corruption types, while freezing the remaining components to preserve pretrained medical representations. We additionally investigate an SVD-based parameter-efficient variant for limited encoder adaptation. Experiments on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution benchmarks show that RobustMedSAM improves degraded-image Dice from 0.613 to 0.719 (+0.106) over SAM, demonstrating that structured fusion of complementary pretrained models is an effective and practical approach for robust medical image segmentation.