Multimodal MRI Report Findings Supervised Brain Lesion Segmentation with Substructures

Yubin Ge, Yongsong Huang, Xiaofeng Liu · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. If the signals below are thin, treat it as background context and compare it against the stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Paper metadata checked

Feb 24, 2026, 3:14 PM

Stale

Protocol signals checked

Feb 24, 2026, 3:14 PM

Stale

Signal strength

Low

Model confidence 0.15

Abstract

Report-supervised (RSuper) learning seeks to alleviate the need for dense tumor voxel labels with constraints derived from radiology reports (e.g., volumes, counts, sizes, locations). In MRI studies of brain tumors, however, we often involve multi-parametric scans and substructures. Here, fine-grained modality/parameter-wise reports are usually provided along with global findings and are correlated with different substructures. Moreover, the reports often describe only the largest lesion and provide qualitative or uncertain cues (``mild,'' ``possible''). Classical RSuper losses (e.g., sum volume consistency) can over-constrain or hallucinate unreported findings under such incompleteness, and are unable to utilize these hierarchical findings or exploit the priors of varied lesion types in a merged dataset. We explicitly parse the global quantitative and modality-wise qualitative findings and introduce a unified, one-sided, uncertainty-aware formulation (MS-RSuper) that: (i) aligns modality-specific qualitative cues (e.g., T1c enhancement, FLAIR edema) with their corresponding substructures using existence and absence losses; (ii) enforces one-sided lower-bounds for partial quantitative cues (e.g., largest lesion size, minimal multiplicity); and (iii) adds extra- vs. intra-axial anatomical priors to respect cohort differences. Certainty tokens scale penalties; missing cues are down-weighted. On 1238 report-labeled BraTS-MET/MEN scans, our MS-RSuper largely outperforms both a sparsely-supervised baseline and a naive RSuper method.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Reliably Extract

Each protocol field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.