A review of the evolution and challenges of few-shot medical image semantic segmentation


Abstract

Image segmentation, as a fundamental task in computer vision, aims to achieve pixel-level delineation between target regions and background. In the field of medical image analysis, traditional segmentation methods heavily rely on large-scale, high-quality annotated datasets. However, expert-level annotations for medical images require substantial professional human resources (e.g., radiologists performing slice-by-slice delineation of lesions) and face challenges such as cross-institutional data heterogeneity, To address this data bottleneck, few-shot medical image semantic segmentation has emerged as a promising paradigm. By leveraging strategies such as meta-learning, metric learning, and other related approaches, these approaches enable models to accurately segment the target region and achieve effective generalization to novel categories using minimal annotated samples (typically less than15 instances per class), thereby significantly reducing dependence on annotated data. This paper systematically explores foundational concepts such as medical image segmentation methods, benchmark datasets, performance evaluation metrics and main approaches for few-shot medical image segmentation. Distinct from existing review literature, our work focuses on summarizing prototype-based few-shot medical image semantic segmentation algorithms. We analyze network architectures from a problem-oriented perspective and critically examine limitations in current methodologies. Finally, grounded in our analysis of current challenges, we propose forward-looking perspectives for future advancements.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].