IVUS Segmentation and Bifurcation Detection

Comprehensive Multi-Task Fine-Tuning Report

Date: February 20, 2026

1) Purpose and Scope

This report documents the full methodology used to adapt a pretrained IVUS segmentation model into a multi-task model that performs:

• Lumen segmentation (pixel-level)
• Bifurcation detection (frame-level)

The goal is to provide a self-contained technical description of model design, training behavior, threshold calibration, results, and limitations.

2) Problem Setup

Given an IVUS frame x, we optimize two tasks:

1. Segmentation output M_hat: lumen mask over pixels
2. Classification output y_hat: bifurcation probability in [0,1]

The model is trained at frame level. There is no temporal model (no recurrence, no sequence transformer, no optical flow objective).

3) Data and Labels

3.1 Data organization

The dataset is built from a frame-bank of manually labeled IVUS frames with train/validation/test partitions.

Split counts:

• Train: 420
• Validation: 90
• Test: 90

3.2 Label distributions

Bifurcation positive rate by split:

• Train: 65.2%
• Validation: 65.6%
• Test: 65.6%

Lumen annotation coverage by split:

• Train: 47.4%
• Validation: 51.1%
• Test: 53.3%

This means classification supervision is denser than segmentation supervision in the multi-task setting.

3.3 Balance visualizations

4) Model Design

4.1 Backbone + multi-task head

A pretrained segmentation backbone is reused as initialization.

A lightweight multi-task classification head is attached on top of segmentation logits:

• Global average pooling over spatial dimensions
• Dense layer (ReLU)
• Dropout
• Final sigmoid output for bifurcation probability

This is a multi-task head, not an attention module.

4.2 Task coupling strategy

The segmentation branch and classification branch share upstream representation. This encourages feature reuse while keeping task-specific outputs separate.

4.3 Conceptual architecture

5) Preprocessing and Input Construction

For each frame:

1. Apply central black-circle preprocessing (to suppress catheter/artifacts near center).
2. Convert grayscale to network input representation.
3. Align labels to frame indices.

For segmentation labels, only frames with valid lumen polygons are supervised.

6) Loss Functions and Optimization

Let i index samples in a minibatch.

• m_i in {0,1}^{H x W}: ground-truth lumen mask
• m_hat_i: predicted lumen probability map
• y_i in {0,1}: bifurcation label
• y_hat_i in (0,1): bifurcation probability
• h_i in {0,1}: has-mask indicator (1 if segmentation label exists)

6.1 Segmentation loss

Weighted BCE + Dice:

L_seg,i = L_wbce(m_i, m_hat_i; w_pos) + lambda_dice * L_dice(m_i, m_hat_i)

Masked batch aggregation (only labeled masks contribute):

L_seg = (sum_i h_i * L_seg,i) / (sum_i h_i + eps)

6.2 Classification loss

Binary cross entropy:

L_cls = (1/B) * sum_i L_bce(y_i, y_hat_i)

6.3 Total objective

L_total = w_seg * L_seg + w_cls * L_cls

6.4 Optimization behavior

• GradientTape-style explicit optimization loop for multi-task fine-tuning
• Gradient clipping by global norm for stability
• Early stopping using validation objective
• Best-checkpoint restore before final export

7) Threshold Selection and Operating Point

After model training, bifurcation threshold t is selected on validation data by grid search over candidate thresholds.

For each t:

y_hat_i^(t) = 1[y_hat_i >= t]

Compute precision, recall, F1, accuracy, etc., then choose:

t* = argmax_t F1_val(t)

The selected threshold is persisted and reused during runtime inference.

8) Training Dynamics

8.1 Multi-task fine-tuning dynamics

Observed behavior:

• Validation classification AUC stabilizes high relatively early.
• Validation F1 is more threshold-sensitive and fluctuates more.
• Segmentation metrics remain strong but vary with sparse segmentation supervision.

8.2 Lumen-only fine-tuning dynamics

9) Test Performance Summary

9.1 Multi-task test metrics

Segmentation (subset with lumen labels):

• IoU: 0.856
• Dice: 0.923

Bifurcation classification:

• Accuracy: 0.900
• Precision: 0.891
• Recall: 0.966
• F1: 0.927
• AUC: 0.961

Confusion matrix:

Metric snapshot:

9.2 Segmentation regime comparison

Note: compared evaluations do not use identical sample sets, so the comparison is directional.

10) Threshold and Calibration Diagnostics

Standalone classifier diagnostics (supporting analysis):

These plots illustrate threshold sensitivity, score separation, and calibration quality.

11) Limitations

11.1 Split caveat: source overlap

Train/validation/test share source pullback files (frame-level partitioning rather than source-level partitioning).

Because the model is frame-independent, this is not temporal leakage. However, repeated source style/statistics across splits can make in-domain metrics optimistic.

11.2 Uneven supervision density

Only about half of samples carry segmentation labels. This creates an imbalance between classification and segmentation supervision in multi-task training.

11.3 Domain shift across source groups

Performance can vary substantially by source group.

This indicates a need for stronger cross-source robustness analysis.

11.4 Head capacity tradeoff

The current multi-task head is intentionally lightweight. This helps stability and runtime cost, but may under-capture fine spatial context around bifurcation patterns.

12) Practical Conclusions

1. The current multi-task approach is effective and operationally coherent.
2. Validation-driven thresholding is critical and should remain part of deployment.
3. The largest methodological caveat is source-overlap evaluation, not temporal modeling leakage.
4. Next major quality gain will likely come from stricter source-level split protocols and robustness-focused evaluation.

13) Reproducibility Note

This report is intended to be self-contained. Supporting figures are stored under docs/memo_assets/.

PDF export command:

scripts/analysis/export_memo_pdf.sh