Papers › The state of the art in kidney and kidney tumor segmentation in contrast-enhanced CT...
The state of the art in kidney and kidney tumor segmentation in contrast-enhanced CT imaging: Results of the KiTS19 Challenge
Nicholas Heller, Fabian Isensee, Klaus H. Maier-Hein, Xiaoshuai Hou, Chunmei Xie, Fengyi Li, Yang Nan, Guangrui Mu, Zhiyong Lin, Miofei Han, Guang Yao, Yaozong Gao, Yao Zhang, Yixin Wang, Feng Hou, Jiawei Yang, Guangwei Xiong, Jiang Tian, Cheng Zhong, Jun Ma, Jack Rickman, Joshua Dean, Bethany Stai, Resha Tejpaul, Makinna Oestreich, Paul Blake, Heather Kaluzniak, Shaneabbas Raza, Joel Rosenberg, Keenan Moore, Edward Walczak, Zachary Rengel, Zach Edgerton, Ranveer Vasdev, Matthew Peterson, Sean McSweeney, Sarah Peterson, Arveen Kalapara, Niranjan Sathianathen, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Christopher Weight
There is a large body of literature linking anatomic and geometric characteristics of kidney tumors to perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Semantic segmentation of these tumors and their host kidneys is a promising tool for quantitatively characterizing these lesions, but its adoption is limited due to the manual effort required to produce high-quality 3D segmentations of these structures. Recently, methods based on deep learning have shown excellent results in automatic 3D segmentation, but they require large datasets for training, and there remains little consensus on which methods perform best. The 2019 Kidney and Kidney Tumor Segmentation challenge (KiTS19) was a competition held in conjunction with the 2019 International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) which sought to address these issues and stimulate progress on this automatic segmentation problem. A training set of 210 cross sectional CT images with kidney tumors was publicly released with corresponding semantic segmentation masks. 106 teams from five continents used this data to develop automated systems to predict the true segmentation masks on a test set of 90 CT images for which the corresponding ground truth segmentations were kept private. These predictions were scored and ranked according to their average So rensen-Dice coefficient between the kidney and tumor across all 90 cases. The winning team achieved a Dice of 0.974 for kidney and 0.851 for tumor, approaching the inter-annotator performance on kidney (0.983) but falling short on tumor (0.923). This challenge has now entered an "open leaderboard" phase where it serves as a challenging benchmark in 3D semantic segmentation.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="1912.01054")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 13 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 9 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · violated contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: official repository: 4 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran; community (archive-listed): 9 samples from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
13 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 4 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
4a23dbf77a743d3c · report
12eb45f376014626 · report
2e997871890c547b · report
a24add5a2359c955 · report
43a77d4e597eba9a · report
9240b6b7b2761ddf · report
1a17806678ca8f05 · report
12c8b682acd24055 · report
b0973b9338c86372 · report
443e438692d931d4 · report
44eebce10845c4a1 · report
6993351600481a61 · report
049ea387d81bd955 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections