SDMC-Seg: A single-step latent diffusion framework for multi-class stroke lesion segmentation in brain CT


Abstract

Accurate segmentation of stroke subtypes in non-contrast CT is essential for timely diagnosis and treatment planning. However, the inherently low tissue contrast in ischemic regions and the heterogeneous appearance of lesions across subtypes present significant challenges. This study introduces SDMC-Seg, a latent diffusion-based framework designed for multi-class stroke segmentation in brain CT images. Unlike previous latent diffusion methods limited to binary tasks, SDMC-Seg addresses multi-class segmentation by encoding each stroke subtype into a distinct semantic channel, allowing the model to disentangle lesion-specific features in latent space for improved classification and delineation. The architecture integrates a fine-tuned mask autoencoder and a trainable CT image encoder, projecting both modalities into a shared, semantically meaningful latent space. Segmentation masks are reconstructed via a conditional denoising network operating on noisy latent representations conditioned on the CT image. In contrast to traditional diffusion methods requiring multiple iterative steps, SDMC-Seg performs single-step latent inference, enabling faster and more stable predictions while preserving structural detail. The model is evaluated on a curated, anonymized subset of a publicly available stroke CT dataset comprising 2,223 annotated slices across ischemic, hemorrhagic, and normal classes. It achieves an average Dice coefficient of 0.79 and IoU of 0.67, outperforming U-Net, ResUNet, and Swin-UNETR baselines—particularly achieving a 9 % Dice improvement in ischemic stroke segmentation. Ablation studies demonstrate that adapting both the image and mask encoders to the target domain significantly enhances performance. These results suggest that SDMC-Seg provides an efficient and scalable solution for stroke lesion delineation in CT, with strong potential for integration into real-time clinical workflows. Remaining limitations in detecting early ischemic changes highlight the need for future extensions incorporating multimodal imaging or temporal progression modeling.
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].