The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
CoTr: Efficiently Bridging CNN and Transformer for 3D Medical Image Segmentation
Open accessAbstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been the de facto standard for nowadays 3D medical image segmentation. The convolutional operations used in these networks, however, inevitably have limitations in modeling the long-range dependency due to their inductive bias of locality and weight sharing. Although Transformer was born to address this issue, it suffers from extreme computational and spatial complexities in processing high-resolution 3D feature maps. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that efficiently bridges a {\bf Co}nvolutional neural network and a {\bf Tr}ansformer {\bf (CoTr)} for accurate 3D medical image segmentation. Under this framework, the CNN is constructed to extract feature representations and an efficient deformable Transformer (DeTrans) is built to model the long-range dependency on the extracted feature maps. Different from the vanilla Transformer which treats all image positions equally, our DeTrans pays attention only to a small set of key positions by introducing the deformable self-attention mechanism. Thus, the computational and spatial complexities of DeTrans have been greatly reduced, making it possible to process the multi-scale and high-resolution feature maps, which are usually of paramount importance for image segmentation. We conduct an extensive evaluation on the Multi-Atlas Labeling Beyond the Cranial Vault (BCV) dataset that covers 11 major human organs. The results indicate that our CoTr leads to a substantial performance improvement over other CNN-based, transformer-based, and hybrid methods on the 3D multi-organ segmentation task. Code is available at \def\UrlFont{\rm\small\ttfamily} \url{https://github.com/YtongXie/CoTr}
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?
Other transformer-based methods CoTr, TransUNet, and SETR have 46.51M, 96.07M, and 86.03M parameters and 399.21G, 48.24G, and 43.49G FLOPs, respectively.
“other transformer-based methods such as CoTr [47], TransUNet [7] and SETR [52] have 46.51M, 96.07M and 86.03Mparameters and 399.21G, 48.24G and 43.49G FLOPs, respectively.”
From UNETR: Transformers for 3D Medical Image Segmentation (2022) · cites this paper as [47]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 654
Metadata
- Authors
- Xie, Y., Zhang, J., Shen, C., & Xia, Y.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Xia, Yong
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 171-180
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2103.03024
- OpenAlex
- W3204255739
- Cited by
- 654
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 74 · 2025: 187 · 2024: 172 · 2023: 133 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 11
- FWCI
- 32.08
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- 3D medical image segmentation, CNN-Transformer hybrid, deformable transformer, long-range dependency modeling, computational efficiency, multi-organ segmentation, high-resolution feature maps
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