The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MedYOLO: A Medical Image Object Detection Framework
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence-enhanced identification of organs, lesions, and other structures in medical imaging is typically done using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) designed to make voxel-accurate segmentations of the region of interest. However, the labels required to train these CNNs are time-consuming to generate and require attention from subject matter experts to ensure quality. For tasks where voxel-level precision is not required, object detection models offer a viable alternative that can reduce annotation effort. Despite this potential application, there are few options for general-purpose object detection frameworks available for 3-D medical imaging. We report on MedYOLO, a 3-D object detection framework using the one-shot detection method of the YOLO family of models and designed for use with medical imaging. We tested this model on four different datasets: BRaTS, LIDC, an abdominal organ Computed tomography (CT) dataset, and an ECG-gated heart CT dataset. We found our models achieve high performance on a diverse range of structures even without hyperparameter tuning, reaching mean average precision (mAP) at intersection over union (IoU) 0.5 of 0.861 on BRaTS, 0.715 on the abdominal CT dataset, and 0.995 on the heart CT dataset. However, the models struggle with some structures, failing to converge on LIDC resulting in a mAP@0.5 of 0.0.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This is particularly useful for medical image analysis, where precise localization of pathologies is critical for treatment planning.
“This is particularly useful for medical image analysis, where precise localization of pathologies is critical for treatment planning [58].”
From The YOLO Framework: A Comprehensive Review of Evolution, Applications, and Benchmarks in Object Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
Citations
Cites
The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): Maintaining and Operating a Public Information Repository
Clark, K., Vendt, B., Smith, K., Freymann, J., Kirby, J., Koppel, P., Moore, S., Phillips, S., Maffitt, D., Pringle, M., et al. (2013) · Journal of Digital Imaging · doi:10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7 · Cited by 4,599
Jocher, G., Stoken, A., Borovec, J., NanoCode012, ChristopherSTAN, Changyu, L., Laughing, Hogan, A., Lorenzomammana, Tkianai, et al. (2020) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3983579 · Cited by 2,738
Segmentation Labels for the Pre-operative Scans of the TCGA-GBM collection
Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J., Freymann, J., Farahani, K., & Davatzikos, C. (2017) · The Cancer Imaging Archive · doi:10.7937/k9/tcia.2017.klxwjj1q · Cited by 316
Segmentation Labels for the Pre-operative Scans of the TCGA-LGG collection
Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J., Freymann, J., Farahani, K., & Davatzikos, C. (2017) · The Cancer Imaging Archive · doi:10.7937/k9/tcia.2017.gjq7r0ef · Cited by 290
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Baumgartner M., Jäger P.F., Isensee F., Maier-Hein K.H.: nnDetection: A Self-configuring Method for Medical Object Detection. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87240-3_51, 2021 · DOI
- Redmon J, Farhadi A: YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger. 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1612.08242, 2016 · DOI · Paper page
- U. Baid, et al.: The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classification. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.02314, 2021 · DOI
- B. H. Menze, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, K. Farahani, J. Kirby, et al.: The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34:1993-2024, 2015 · DOI · Paper page
- S. Bakas, H. Akbari, A. Sotiras, M. Bilello, M. Rozycki, J.S. Kirby, et al.: Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci Data 4:170117, 2017 · DOI · Paper page
- Armato III, S. G., et al.: Data From LIDC-IDRI. The Cancer Imaging Archive. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2015.LO9QL9SX, 2015 · DOI
- Armato III, S.G., et al.: The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI): A completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans. Medical Physics 38:915—931, 2011 · DOI · Paper page
- Weston, A.D., et al.: Complete abdomen and pelvis segmentation using U-net variant architecture. Med. Phys., 47:5609-5618, 2020 · DOI
- Philbrick, K.A., et al.: RIL-Contour: A Medical Imaging Dataset Annotation Tool for and with Deep Learning. Journal of Digital Imaging 32:574-581, 2019 · DOI
- Lin, T.-Y., et al.: Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1405.0312, 2015 · DOI · Paper page
- Rouzrokh, P. et al.: Deep Learning Artificial Intelligence Model for Assessment of Hip Dislocation Risk Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty From Postoperative Radiographs. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.028, 2021 · DOI
- Wang, C.-Y., et al.: YOLOv9: Learning What You Want to Learn Using Programmable Gradient Information. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.13616, 2024 · DOI
- Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980, 2014 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, M. L., & Zhang, Z. (2024) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers13120336 · Cited by 383
Patil, A. N., Mohanty, S. N., & Khan, T. (2025) · Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications · doi:10.2174/0126662558333174241009112642 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Sobek, J., Medina Inojosa, J. R., Medina Inojosa, B. J., Rassoulinejad-Mousavi, S. M., Conte, G. M., Lopez-Jimenez, F., & Erickson, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sobek, Joseph
- Venue
- Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine
- Published
- 2024-06-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3208-3216
- ISSN
- 0897-1889 (ISSN-L)
- 2948-2933
- PMC
- PMC11612059
- OpenAlex
- W4399393690
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 10
- FWCI
- 8.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Cancer Institute
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- 3D object detection, YOLO, medical image object detection, organ detection, lesion detection, annotation cost reduction, BraTS, LIDC, abdominal CT
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Heart, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Neural Networks, Computer, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review