Research Article

A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images

Volume: 10 Number: 3 July 6, 2026

A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images

Abstract

Deep learning-based methods have achieved significant success in medical image segmentation. However, their effectiveness is often constrained by the limited availability of annotated data. To address this challenge, data augmentation techniques have become a critical strategy to enrich the training set and enhance model generalization. In this study, we systematically evaluate both classical and generative data augmentation strategies for nucleus segmentation on the MoNuSeg dataset. The U-Net architecture was employed as the baseline method. To investigate the effects of augmentation, the classical CutMix approach was applied, along with three generative strategies: Latent Diffusion Models (LDM), MedSegDiff, and SPADE, a GAN-based conditional image synthesis method. Furthermore, we propose a hybrid strategy (CutMix+SPADE), where mixed label masks are used as input to the SPADE generator, producing more diverse synthetic examples. Experimental results demonstrate that all augmentation strategies consistently improve segmentation performance compared to the baseline model. In particular, the proposed CutMix+SPADE method achieved the highest results across all evaluation metrics, including Dice, IoU, Precision, Recall, and F1-score. These findings indicate that combining structural mixing with generative synthesis can significantly enhance model generalization.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical Statement

This study does not involve any experiments on humans or animals. The analyses were carried out on the publicly available MoNuSeg dataset, which is open access and does not contain personally identifiable information. Therefore, no ethical approval was required. The authors declare that they have adhered to ethical research standards throughout the study.

References

  1. Dennison, R., Dasebenezer, G. K., & Dennison, R. (2024). Cervic cancer classification using quantum fuzzy set. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 8(4), 687–694. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1455056
  2. Polater, S. N., & Sevli, O. (2024). Deep learning based classification for Alzheimer's disease detection using MRI images. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 8(4), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1434866
  3. Shorten, C., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2019). A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0197-0
  4. Maharana, K., Mondal, S., & Nemade, B. (2022). A review: Data pre-processing and data augmentation techniques. Global Transitions Proceedings, 3(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gltp.2022.04.020
  5. Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27.
  6. Ho, J., Jain, A., & Abbeel, P. (2020). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, & H. Lin (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851). Curran Associates, Inc.
  7. Wu, J., Fu, R., Fang, H., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., Xiong, H., Liu, H., & Xu, Y. (2024). MedSegDiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 227, 1623–1639. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v227/wu24a.html
  8. Park, T., Liu, M. Y., Wang, T. C., & Zhu, J. Y. (2019). Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2337–2346.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Software Engineering (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

July 6, 2026

Submission Date

October 2, 2025

Acceptance Date

June 2, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 10 Number: 3

APA
Kale, A. (2026). A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 10(3), 958-963. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1794453
AMA
1.Kale A. A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images. TUJE. 2026;10(3):958-963. doi:10.31127/tuje.1794453
Chicago
Kale, Ayşe. 2026. “A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images”. Turkish Journal of Engineering 10 (3): 958-63. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1794453.
EndNote
Kale A (July 1, 2026) A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images. Turkish Journal of Engineering 10 3 958–963.
IEEE
[1]A. Kale, “A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images”, TUJE, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 958–963, July 2026, doi: 10.31127/tuje.1794453.
ISNAD
Kale, Ayşe. “A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images”. Turkish Journal of Engineering 10/3 (July 1, 2026): 958-963. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1794453.
JAMA
1.Kale A. A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images. TUJE. 2026;10:958–963.
MLA
Kale, Ayşe. “A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images”. Turkish Journal of Engineering, vol. 10, no. 3, July 2026, pp. 958-63, doi:10.31127/tuje.1794453.
Vancouver
1.Ayşe Kale. A Comparative Study of Different Data Augmentation Techniques for Nuclei Segmentation in Histopathological Images. TUJE. 2026 Jul. 1;10(3):958-63. doi:10.31127/tuje.1794453
Flag Counter