SUGFW+: An Uncertainty-guided Feature Weighting Framework for Cold Start Active Adaptation of SAM in Medical Image Segmentation
Organizations: School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. · Glassgow College, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China. · Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
Cold Start Active Learning (CSAL) is important in improving the performance of a medical image segmentation model with low annotation budget by querying a small subset for annotation from an unlabeled training set. Existing CSAL methods typically rely on inefficient dataset-specific Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) to map the unlabeled images into a feature space for sample selection. Recently, the advent of foundation models such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM) offer a promising alternative as the pre-trained model can provide strong generalizable feature embeddings, and allow high performance in downstream tasks after fine-tuning (adaptation). However, how to systematically exploit SAM's inherent embeddings for cold-start sample selection during adaptation with low annotation budget remains underexplored. To address this, we propose an extended SAM-based Uncertainty-guided Feature Weighting (SUGFW+) framework for CSAL and adaptation of SAM. Specifically, it leverages the SAM for Patch-level Feature and Uncertainty Calculation (PFUC), and introduces a Patch-based Global Distinct Representation (PGDR) module that aggregates patch-level embeddings into highly discriminative, uncertainty-aware image-level features. These features are then utilized by a Greedy Selection with Cluster and Uncertainty (GSCU) strategy to combine diversity and uncertainty during sample selection. Unlike prior CSAL methods that decouple sample selection from model training, SUGFW+ tightly integrates these two stages via an Uncertainty-Prompted Fine-Tuning (UPFT) process of SAM in model training. Extensive experiments on four public datasets demonstrate that SUGFW+ achieves state-of-the-art performance against existing CSAL methods. Code is available at https://github.com/HiLab-git/SUGFW-plus.
Figures & tables
| Metric | Method | Annotation Budget | |||||
| 3.0% | 4.0% | 5.0% | 6.0% | 7.0% | 8.0% | ||
| DSC (%) | Random | 84.03±5.87 | 85.72±4.86 | 85.74±4.33 | 86.24±6.79 | 86.55±6.27 | 86.64±6.60 |
| ALPS [ 44 ] | 81.43±8.39 | 82.46±10.14 | 84.97±7.09 | 86.44±5.37 | 87.92±4.48 | 88.39±5.65 | |
| CALR [ 22 ] | 82.89±5.74 | 84.44±6.90 | 85.72±5.59 | 86.63±5.56 | 86.84±7.80 | 87.53±7.08 | |
| FPS [ 23 ] | 84.24±6.15 | 85.40±5.48 | 86.95±6.31 | 87.16±4.48 | 87.32±5.50 | 88.21±3.56 | |
| Probcover [ 43 ] | 83.08±4.82 | 86.22±4.82 | 86.49±5.26 | 86.70±4.15 | 88.53±3.56 | 88.88±3.52 | |
| Metric | Method | Annotation Budget | |||||
| 0.10% | 0.15% | 0.20% | 0.25% | 0.50% | 0.75% | ||
| DSC (%) | Random | 70.96±11.96 | 75.17±5.32 | 81.51±4.84 | 82.51±4.06 | 85.00±3.58 | 87.67±3.23 |
| ALPS [ 44 ] | 73.80±6.48 | 77.24±5.69 | 80.72±5.19 | 83.73±4.58 | 85.68±5.08 | 87.61±4.21 | |
| CALR [ 22 ] | 73.78±5.59 | 74.96±5.40 | 81.28±4.47 | 80.72±4.89 | 82.84±5.72 | 88.66±3.44 | |
| FPS [ 23 ] | 46.97±12.54 | 69.74±13.30 | 70.16±14.79 | 71.58±10.94 | 71.76±7.62 | 82.57±7.74 | |
| Probcover [ 43 ] | 62.72±12.83 | 74.78±5.21 | 76.83±5.17 | 76.90±4.78 | 78.41±4.62 | 83.30±4.13 | |
| Metric | Method | Annotation Budget | |||||
| 0.05% | 0.06% | 0.08% | 0.10% | 0.20% | 0.30% | ||
| DSC (%) | Random | 68.99±9.51 | 70.09±6.85 | 74.32±6.12 | 77.86±5.54 | 84.34±4.99 | 90.37±4.71 |
| ALPS [ 44 ] | 63.79±9.30 | 78.90±4.70 | 83.17±4.28 | 85.64±4.02 | 90.99±3.80 | 92.57±3.31 | |
| CALR [ 22 ] | 62.19±11.36 | 67.35±9.91 | 71.24±8.43 | 75.49±7.16 | 84.24±5.00 | 91.97±5.29 | |
| FPS [ 23 ] | 72.15±5.07 | 75.58±6.01 | 76.13±5.89 | 76.82±5.67 | 77.98±5.45 | 89.58±4.06 | |
| Probcover [ 43 ] | 58.70±9.22 | 77.13±4.18 | 78.64±5.12 | 80.37±6.33 | 83.03±7.66 | 84.15±6.23 | |
| Metric | Method | Annotation Budget | |||||
| 0.5 % | 1.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | 2.5% | 3.0% | ||
| DSC (%) | Random | 83.67±15.75 | 83.99±15.91 | 84.08±15.18 | 84.46±16.31 | 86.23±16.18 | 86.42±16.06 |
| ALPS [ 44 ] | 82.60±21.79 | 82.52±15.00 | 86.56±17.02 | 87.21±13.08 | 87.67±14.23 | 88.98±13.07 | |
| CALR [ 22 ] | 84.00±15.00 | 85.26±14.55 | 85.23±17.16 | 86.74±12.59 | 87.18±12.56 | 88.45±14.38 | |
| FPS [ 23 ] | 82.91±15.19 | 83.86±17.82 | 85.10±14.50 | 86.14±12.37 | 87.19±13.91 | 87.50±11.74 | |
| Probcover [ 43 ] | 79.95±15.14 | 80.65±18.31 | 84.47±17.82 | 84.57±18.87 | 84.92±17.33 | 87.22±15.86 | |
| Method | GSCU | Promise12 | ISIC 2018 | ||||||
| 3.0% | 4.0% | 5.0% | 0.5% | 1.0% | 1.5% | ||||
| Random | 84.03±5.87 | 85.72±4.86 | 85.74±4.33 | 83.67±15.75 | 83.99±15.91 | 84.08±15.18 | |||
| Un only | ✓ | 85.73±5.05 | 86.60±4.07 | 87.71±4.00 | 85.94±12.40 | 86.09±13.31 | 86.94±13.56 | ||
| w/o GSCU | ✓ | ✓ | 81.22±6.18 | 85.32±6.78 | 87.55±5.24 | 82.46±17.38 | 83.72±14.85 | 86.26±12.26 | |
| w/o PGDR | ✓ | ✓ | 85.13±4.66 | 85.30±5.25 | 87.49±5.61 | 83.85±16.23 | 86.19±13.51 | 86.58±11.47 | |
| SUGFW | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 86.38±5.60 | 87.35±3.90 | 87.86±5.86 | 86.36±13.50 | 87.08±13.74 | 87.59±14.22 |
| Method | Trainable Params (M) | Promise12 | ISIC 2018 | ||||
| 3.0% | 4.0% | 5.0% | 0.5% | 1.0% | 1.5% | ||
| SwinUNet | 62.19 | 60.59±2.01 | 64.47±5.43 | 72.63±2.86 | 57.85±27.76 | 59.26±27.40 | 61.44±26.10 |
| nnUNet | 32.42 | 63.07±10.51 | 68.41±7.31 | 76.05±5.03 | 70.87±25.80 | 74.03±26.12 | 76.96±23.83 |
| DINOUNet | 11.18 | 85.72±4.60 | 86.34±4.08 | 86.75±3.95 | 85.11±15.75 | 85.94±13.49 | 86.77±13.37 |
| Ours w/o Un | 28.67 | 85.01±5.67 | 86.72±4.23 | 87.52±5.38 | 86.02±13.80 | 86.88±14.93 | 87.02±13.54 |
| Ours | 29.86 | 86.38±5.60 | 87.35±3.90 | 87.86±5.86 | 86.36±13.50 | 87.08±13.74 | 87.59±14.22 |
Medical Image Segmentation
Medical image segmentation delineates organs, lesions, and other structures in scans to support measurement, diagnosis, treatment planning, and research.
See all 788 papers