Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates accurate vessel segmentation with low false positives in ESD, implying safer procedures.
PURPOSE: Preventing intraoperative bleeding in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) relies on the timely identification and pre-coagulation of submucosal vessels. We aim to reduce bleeding risk by delivering accurate vessel segmentation with uncertainty awareness. METHODS: We present ESD-VesNet, a prompt-free SAM3-based framework with an evidential head that outputs vessel probability and pixel-wise uncertainty. The model is trained in a false-positive-aware manner using our developed ESD-Vessel dataset, which includes 2401 positives (images with clear vessel annotation) and 708 curated hard negatives (images may be confused with vessels), combined with online uncertainty-guided hard negative mining. The model is trained in a false-positive-aware manner using the ESD-Vessel dataset, which includes 2401 positive samples (images with clear vessel annotations) and 708 curated hard negatives (images visually confusable with vessels), combined with online uncertainty-guided hard negative mining. By suppressing false positive predictions, our approach has the potential to minimize unnecessary interventions, such as unwarranted coagulation. RESULTS: 35.23%, mDice 75.70%, and Vessel Detection Rate 96.81%, while keeping Background False Positive Rate at 0.61%. Structural quality is high (E-measure 0.7275; S-measure 0.7223). Qualitative analyses show robustness under bubbles, debris, reflections, and blood seepage. CONCLUSION: Integrating SAM3 with evidential uncertainty and hard negative mining yields a clinically oriented vessel segmentation system that maintains high detection sensitivity with low false positives, supporting safer ESD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: