ScribFormer: Transformer Makes CNN Work Better for Scribble-based Medical Image Segmentation

Medical image segmentation plays a crucial role in many fields, such as brain segmentation [21, 22], registration [23], and disease diagnosis [24]. A new paradigm for medical image segmentation has evolved thanks to the success of Vision Transformer (ViT) [12] in many computer vision fields. Generally, the Transformer-based models for medical image segmentation can be classified into two types: 1) ViT as the main encoder and 2) ViT as an additional encoder [25]. In the first type, the global attention-based ViT is utilized as the main encoder and connected to the CNNs-based decoder modules, such as the works presented in [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. The second model type utilizes Transformers as the secondary encoder after the main encoder CNN. There are several representative works following this widely-adopted structure, including TransUNet [32], TransUNet++ [33], CoTr [34], SegTrans [35], TransBTS [36], and so on. In the hybrid models, ViT and CNN encoders are combined to take the medical image as input, and then the embedded features are fused to connect to the decoder. This multi-branch structure provides the benefits of simultaneously learning global and local information, which has been utilized in several ViT-based architectures, such as CrossTeaching [37]. Although the Transformer-based models have demonstrated tremendous success in medical image segmentation, most of them are based on fully-supervised or semi-supervised learning, which generally requires a large amount of fully-annotated training data. To the best of our knowledge, the Transformer-based techniques have not been explored for scribble-supervised medical image segmentation.

To reduce the cost of training a learning model using fully annotated datasets without performance compromise, scribble-supervised learning is widely used in solving various vision tasks, including object detection [38, 39, 40] and semantic segmentation [41, 42, 43]. Scribble-based supervision has recently emerged as a promising medical image segmentation technique. Ji et al. [44] proposed a scribble-based hierarchical weakly supervised learning model for brain tumor segmentation, combining two weak labels for model training, i.e., scribbles on whole tumor and healthy brain tissue, and global labels for the presence of each substructure. In the meantime, several research works focus on scribble-supervised segmentation without requiring extra annotated masks. Can et al. [45] investigated training strategies to learn parameters of a pixel-wise segmentation network from scribble annotations alone, where a dataset relabeling mechanism was introduced using the dense conditional random field (CRF) during the process of training. Luo et al. [10] proposed a scribble-supervised segmentation model via training a dual-branch network with dynamically mixed pseudo labels supervision (DMPLS). Recently, Cyclemix [9] was proposed for scribble learning-based medical image segmentation, which generated mixed images and regularized the model by cycle consistency. Generally, none of these methods have exploited global information of the image for the medical image segmentation problem. We believe the hidden global information in the dataset learned by Transformers could be useful for enhancing the performance of segmentation.

A schematic view of the framework of our proposed ScribFormer is presented in Fig. 2. The framework consists of a triple-branch network, i.e., the hybrid CNN and Transformer branches, along with an attention-guided class activation map (ACAM) branch. For scribble-supervised learning, the leveraging dataset $D=\{(x,s)_{n}\}_{n=1}^{N}$ consists of images $x$ and scribble annotations $s$, where a scribble contains a set of pixels of strokes representing a certain category or unknown label. First, the CNN branch collaborates with the Transformer branch to fuse the local features learned from CNN with the global representations obtained from Transformers, and generates dual segmentation outputs, i.e., $y_{cnn}$ and $y_{Trans}$, which are then compared with the scribble annotations by applying partial cross-entropy loss. Then, both outputs are compared with the hard pseudo labels generated by mixing two predictions dynamically for pseudo-supervised learning. Furthermore, the process of extracting ACAMs from the CNN branch and verifying the application consisting of ACAMs enables the shallow convolution layer to learn the pixels affected by the deep one. Specifically, since the deep convolutional layer can effectively amalgamate the advantages of both CNN and Transformer, it encompasses more advanced local details as well as global contextual information.

When computing the ACAMs-consistency loss, shallow features are utilized to narrow the gap with the deep features, enabling the shallow features to learn semantic information akin to that present in the deep features. This approach effectively addresses the issue of local activations.

In comparison to previous CNN-Transformer hybrid networks, such as TransUNet [32], Cotr [34], and Conformer [14], our proposed ScribFormer not only applies scribble data to the CNN-Trans hybrid network, but also takes the unique characteristics of scribble data into account. Previous networks, such as Conformer [14], include encoders and decoders as part of the CNN-Trans structure. Our ScribFormer, on the other hand, only integrates the CNN-Trans structure between encoders. In the decoders, the CNN feature and the Transformer feature are distinguished, which allows us to concentrate on similarities between CNN-Trans as a hybrid network while also considering differences in the decoders. This is especially important for the scribble-supervised model lacking supervision signals in scribble annotations (compared to full annotations), which often results in mis-segmentation. Our goal is to ensure both CNN and Transformer branches to focus on different parts of image as much as possible for robust segmentation results.

The encoder of the CNN branch adopts a feature pyramid structure. As the stage of the CNN encoder increases, the resolution of the feature map decreases, while the number of channels increases. Each convolution block contains multiple bottlenecks from ResNet, including a down-projection convolution, spatial convolution, and upper-projection convolution. The down-projection convolution reduces spatial dimensions of input data by emphasizing crucial information through convolution and max pooling. The spatial convolution extracts features by detecting patterns and correlations among adjacent pixels, enabling the network to capture local features and learn spatial hierarchies. The upper-projection convolution increases the size of feature maps using deconvolution, while preserving spatial relationships of the learned features. The CNN branch can continuously provide local feature details to the Transformer branch. Unlike the CNN branch, the Transformer branch concerns global representation, which contains the same number of Transformer blocks as the convolution blocks in the CNN branch. The projection layer compresses the feature map generated by the stem module into patch embeddings. Each Transformer block comprises a multi-head self-attention (MHSA) module and an MLP block, where LayerNorm follows before each layer and also residual connection is used in each layer.

The FCU (Feature Coupling Units) shown in Fig. 3 is introduced to integrate the CNN branch and the Transformer branch for feature fusion. Specifically, the CNN feature map collected from the local convolutional operator and Transformer patch embedding, aggregated with the global self-attention mechanism, is aligned and added. This alignment ensures that convolutional and Transformer features share the same feature space, preventing issues arising from dimensional disparities. The aligned features are combined through addition, effectively merging locally-captured patterns from the CNN with global contextual relationships from the Transformer. This feature fusion enhances the model’s ability to recognize intricate patterns and contextual relationships within the data, achieving effective feature sharing between the two components. Each Transformer block takes the output of the FCU and adds it to the token embeddings from the previous Transformer block. This process is the same for each CNN block, combining features from dual branches. The downsampling process is implemented using Conv2D and AvgPool2D. The Conv features initially traverse a Conv2D layer, followed by an AvgPool2D layer, a layer normalization layer, and a GELU activation layer. Subsequently, they are concatenated with the transformer features from the preceding layer, finalizing the alignment process. Upsampling is executed using both Conv2D and interpolation techniques. Specifically, the transformer features undergo a sequence of processing, including a Conv2D layer, a batch normalization layer, and a RELU activation layer. The resultant transformer features are then harmonized with the convolutional features via an interpolation operation.

The model was implemented using Pytorch and trained on one NVIDIA 1080Ti 11GB GPU. We initially rescaled the intensity of each slice in the ACDC dataset, the MSCMR dataset, and the HeartUII dataset to a range of values between 0 and 1. To expand the training set, we applied random rotation, flip**, and noise to the images. The enhanced image was adjusted to 256 $\times$ 256 pixels before being utilized as input to the network. For the MSCMR dataset, each image was cropped or padded to the identical size of 212$\times$ 212 pixels to enhance performance. The optimizer choice was AdamW. In a series of preliminary experiments, we observed that the model converged within 300 epochs, with diminishing returns on further training. Therefore, we trained for 300 epochs on each dataset. For learning rate and weight decay, a grid search was conducted, resulting in the optimal performance achieved at a learning rate of 0.001 and weight decay of 0.0005, respectively. Early stop** was not employed during the training process. Additionally, the total training time was hard-coded to maintain consistency across experiments. The ACAM-consistency factors $(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3},\omega_{4})$ were set to (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1). We empirically set the weights $(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3})$ to (1, 0.5, 0.1) in Eq.(6). For all datasets, Dice Score (Dice) was used as an evaluation metric.

To demonstrate the comprehensive segmentation performances of our method, the proposed ScribFormer is compared with different SOTA methods.

We $first$ compared our approach to several state-of-the-art scribble-supervised methods, including 1) different scribble-supervised training strategies to UNet [51] as the base segmentation network architecture with only partial cross-entropy loss (pce) [6], using entropy minimization (em) regularization [8], with conditional random field (crf) [52], with mumford–shah Loss (mloss) [7], transformation-consistent regularization (ustr) [53], and weighted partial cross-entropy loss (wpce) [4], or utilizing uncertainty-aware self-ensembling; 2) different frameworks with same scribble-supervised training loss, i.e., using partial cross-entropy loss on different variants of UNet${}_{pce}$ [6], including UNet${}^{+}_{pce}$ [54], which has fewer channels in the upsampling path with transpose convolutions adjusted to match the number of classes, and UNet${}^{++}_{pce}$ [1], a classic variant incorporating nested and dense skip connections upon original UNet architecture; 3) different data augmentation strategies to UNet${}^{+}_{pce}$ [54] , including Co-mixup [55], CutMix [56], Puzzle Mix [57], Cutout [58], MixUp [59], or CycleMix${}_{S}$ [9]. $Second$, we also compared our method with some adversarial learning methods, including UNet${}_{D}$ [4], MAAG [4], ACCL [60], and PostDAE [61], which utilized additional unpaired segmentation masks. $Finally$, we investigated the upper bound using all mask annotations, i.e., fully-supervised methods such as UNet${}_{F}$ [51], UNet${}^{+}_{F}$ [54], UNet${}^{++}_{F}$ [1], and those applying augmentation strategies such as Puzzle Mix${}_{F}$ [57] and CycleMix${}_{F}$ [9].

The results of the above methods on ACDC and MSCMR are reported in Table I, Table II and Table III separately, with some results obtained from [10] and [9]. In the initial section of these three tables, our ScribFormer model showcases its superiority over several training strategies, model architectures, and data augmentation techniques based on UNet when it comes to scribble supervision. Notably, it outperforms the state-of-the-art method, CycleMix, by a substantial margin of 4.0% (88.8% vs 84.8%), 3.9% (83.9% vs 80.0%), and 2.3% (83.3% vs 81.0%) on ACDC, MSCMRseg, and HeartUII, respectively. This compelling performance differential underscores the effectiveness of incorporating Transformer global context into CNN’s local features within the framework of scribble-supervised semantic segmentation.

In the second section of Table I, the ACDC results underscore substantial performance advancements achieved by ScribFormer compared to other weakly-supervised methods. Notably, ScribFormer’s Dice scores for all three categories (LV, MYO, and RV) outperform the previous best method (MAAG). Unlike approaches relying on additional unpaired masks, which are constrained in learning global shape information from a limited training image set, ScribFormer overcomes this limitation. It achieves this by leveraging the ACAM branch to implicitly learn global shape information, eliminating the need for extra fully-annotated masks.

In the final sections of all three tables, we conducted comparison between ScribFormer and several fully-supervised learning methods, including CycleMix and nnUNet under full supervision. As observed in the tables, fully-supervised learning outperforms scribble annotations combined with additional unpaired masks. This performance difference is primarily attributed to the exclusion of images associated with masks and the absence of pixel-wise relationships. However, it’s worth noting that our ScribFormer outperforms most of the fully-supervised methods (except nnUNet) at a lower annotation cost. This demonstrates the great potential of the proposed scribble-supervised model in medical image segmentation.

Fig. 5 presents segmentation results of different methods on ACDC and MSCMR. It can be observed that other scribble-supervised methods tend to generate insufficient or extra segmentation areas, especially on MSCMR, probably due to the limited image information learned from scribbles. In contrast, our method can obtain global representations from the Transformer branch, making up for the deficiency of CNN local features. The results generated by our method are closer to the ground truth, especially in terms of shape completeness than other scribble-supervised and even fully-supervised methods.

This section studies the effectiveness of different components of the proposed ScribFormer, including the CNN, Transformer, and ACAM branches. Table V reports the results.

To explain the role of ACAM-consistency and further verify the effectiveness of Transformers, the visualization of the ACAMs in each layer is shown in Fig. 6. It can be observed that i) the ACAMs of convolution layer3 closely match the goal segmentation region of the ground truth, rather than discriminative regions, which means the introduction of Transformers can help modulate the activation maps, emphasizing global features in scribble supervision. ii) As the network goes deeper, the activation maps of the convolution layer also gradually approach the target segmentation areas. Specifically, Conv Embedding1 and Conv Embedding2 concentrate on locating high-contrast regions, which appear as low and scattered highlights on the activation map. The activation maps of the Conv Layer1 contain multiple relatively-dense tiny regions and begin to focus on the segmentation area. Conv Layer2 gets closer to the target, and the ACAMs of Conv Layer3 are extremely similar to the ground truth. The observed outcome can be ascribed to the joint effect of Transformer refinement and ACAM-consistency regularization on the attention regions of the shallow ACAMs. Furthermore, when comparing ACAM with and without consistency loss, it is evident that our model maintains the capability to focus on the target region even without consistency loss. Nonetheless, certain level of confusion arises in the absence of consistency loss. This highlights the effectiveness of integrating our ACAMs with consistency loss, as it serves to further enhance the refinement of attention-guided class activation maps.

The data sensitivity study delves into ScribFormer’s performance when trained with varying numbers of scribble annotations. Table X showcases a clear trend where ScribFormer’s performance progressively improves as the number of scribble-annotated samples increases. Notably, even with just 14 training samples that include scribbles, our model achieves a respectable accuracy of 84.7%. This highlights ScribFormer’s ability to produce satisfactory segmentation results with a relatively small amount of scribble annotations. The model’s overall performance stabilizes as it’s trained with 56 scribble annotations (which amounts to 80% of the total 70 scribbles). The peak performance is achieved when all 70 scribble annotations are utilized, resulting in an impressive accuracy of 89.4%.

As illustrated in Table XI, to assess the model’s complexity, we compared the parameter count and FLOPs between the proposed ScribFormer and other benchmark methods. It’s worth noting that the UNet variants, such as UNet${}_{pce}$, UNet${}_{ustr}$, and UNet${}^{++}_{pce}$, maintain equivalent parameter sizes and FLOPs to their respective UNet and UNet${}^{++}$ counterparts. Compared with the UNet variants, the parameter count of our model is relatively higher, primarily due to the inclusion of Transformer components. However, in comparison to CycleMix, our model exhibits lower computational complexity. Furthermore, we evaluated the averaged inference time per case within the HeartUII test set for both CycleMix and ScribFormer. The results indicate that CycleMix requires 21.21 seconds per case, whereas ScribFormer achieves a faster inference time at just 13.96 seconds. The observation underscores our advantage in terms of inference efficiency. And, we observe computational demands of the Transformer architecture posing a potential challenge for real-time applications. To address this concern, our ongoing efforts are focusing on optimization of ScribFormer to enhance its suitability across a broader spectrum of scenarios. At the same time, experimental results also suggest that ScribFormer outperforms or competes favorably with existing architectures in some benchmark tasks. These evidences add credibility to the model’s capabilities, reinforcing its potential as a reliable solution in various applications.

To conduct a thorough significance analysis, we computed 95% confidence intervals using the bootstrap method [65] and calculated p-values through t-test on the HeartUII testing set, as presented in Table XII. By comparing 95% confidence intervals and p-values, our approach exhibits significant differences compared to UNet${}_{pce}$, UNet${}_{ustr}$, UNet${}_{em}$, and UNet${}_{pce}^{++}$. Despite the non-significant trend in p-values for UNet${}_{crf}$ and CycleMix${}_{S}$, analyzing the 95% confidence interval reveals a narrower range for our method compared to UNet${}_{crf}$. This indicates lower overall variance and also suggests greater robustness in our model. Moreover, by examining the box plot of inference results in Fig. 7, our method demonstrates a higher median than CycleMix${}_{S}$, indicating that our approach outperforms CycleMix${}_{S}$ at the average level of the testing samples.