Acquiring pixel-level annotations for medical image segmentation is a severe bottleneck. Traditional U-Net architectures, while effective, learn local texture patterns and lack awareness of global anatomical structures, leading to boundary delineation failures in low-data regimes. This research paper proposes utilizing unsupervised Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPMs) to extract anatomical features. We train a DDPM on 21 unlabeled abdominal CT scans to learn structural representations, transferring the encoder weights to a downstream segmentation task evaluated on the BTCV multi-organ dataset. Diffusion pretraining significantly improved liver segmentation: Dice increased from 0.75±0.36 to 0.93±0.16 (p<5.33×10−26, 0.529 Cohen's d), Average Surface Distance (ASD) decreased by 66%, and 95th-percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95) reduced by 45%. For kidney segmentation, Dice improved from 0.90±0.19 to 0.95±0.10 (p<4.01×10−11). Multi-organ pooled performance showed a 68% variance reduction and a 74% improvement in boundary precision (Dice 0.95±0.07). Crucially, frozen encoder models retained > 80% of fine-tuned performance without exposure to segmentation labels, proving the existence of learned anatomical priors. In low-data scenarios, diffusion-pretrained models maintained robust performance with only 50% (Dice: 0.92 liver, 0.94 kidney), 25%, and even 10% (Dice: 0.89 liver, 0.71 kidney) of labeled data. Using unlabeled images for diffusion-based pretraining successfully embeds robust anatomical features prior to human supervision, transforming U-Nets into anatomy-aware systems.
TABLE II: Model names and percentage of labeled data for Low Data Simulation Study.
Fig. 3: Grad-CAM Attention Heatmaps from Bottleneck Layer Across All 15 Models. Heatmaps overlaid on input CT slices for models M1–M15 on three representative cases. Warm colors (red/yellow) indicate high feature activation; cool colors (blue/green) show low activation. The heatmaps reveal where the network’s deepest convolutional features focus when making segmentation predictions.
Model
Dice
IoU
HD95 (mm)
ASD (mm)
M1
0.751 ± 0.363
0.703 ± 0.354
11.76 ± 16.44
4.38 ± 11.11
M2
0.899 ± 0.192
0.853 ± 0.216
14.00 ± 27.32
3.75 ± 8.13
M3
0.783 ± 0.225
0.724 ± 0.236
15.49 ± 18.26
4.26 ± 5.69
M4
0.928 ± 0.160
0.891 ± 0.178
6.50 ± 11.13
1.51 ± 2.08
M5
0.950 ± 0.101
0.916 ± 0.129
8.89 ± 25.25
2.47 ± 7.55
M6
0.950 ± 0.071
0.916 ± 0.081
6.35 ± 12.92
1.42 ± 2.55
TABLE III: Comprehensive Segmentation Performance Across All Models.
Comparison
Models
Raw p-value
Adjusted p-value
Cohen’s d
Effect Size
Baseline vs Fine-Tuned Diffusion
Liver
M1 vs M4
2.66 × 10 -26
3.20 × 10 -25
0.529
Medium
Kidney
M2 vs M5
2.00 × 10 -11
2.41 × 10 -10
0.271
Small
Multi-Organ
M3 vs M6
9.40 × 10 -31
1.13 × 10 -29
0.766
Medium
Fine-Tuned vs Frozen Encoder
Liver
M4 vs M7
6.34 × 10 -28
7.61 × 10 -27
− 0.475
Small
TABLE IV: Statistical Significance Analysis (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with Bonferroni Correction).
Model
Organ
Labeled Data
Dice
% Performance
M4
Liver
100%
0.928 ± 0.160
100.0%
M10
Liver
50%
0.922 ± 0.173
99.4%
M11
Liver
25%
0.904 ± 0.199
97.4%
M12
Liver
10%
0.886 ± 0.193
95.5%
M5
Kidney
100%
0.950 ± 0.101
100.0%
M13
Kidney
50%
0.941 ± 0.124
99.1%
TABLE V: Data Efficiency Analysis (Dice Coefficient Only).