pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.06384 · v2 · pith:TKWUKHDAnew · submitted 2025-07-08 · 📡 eess.IV · cs.CV

Mitigating 3D Prostate Biparametric MRI Data Scarcity through Domain Adaptation using Locally-Trained Latent Diffusion Models for Prostate Cancer Detection

Emerson P. Grabke , Babak Taati , Masoom A. Haider This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 23:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.IV cs.CV
keywords latent diffusion modelsbiparametric prostate MRIdomain adaptationsynthetic medical imagesprostate cancer detectiondata scarcitymachine learningsource-free adaptation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A latent diffusion model generates 3D biparametric prostate MRI that supports stronger domain adaptation than real images when external data is limited.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces CCELLA++, a latent diffusion model pipeline that produces synthetic 3D biparametric prostate MRI including axial T2-weighted, high b-value diffusion, and ADC sequences. Classifiers pretrained on these synthetic images from one institution are then fine-tuned on fractions of data from an external institution to handle domain shift and scarcity. This setup is tested against pretraining on real bpMRI and against an earlier AxT2-only synthetic method. Results indicate that the synthetic pretraining yields higher average precision and AUC in the lowest-data regimes and remains competitive or superior across larger external volumes.

Core claim

CCELLA++ synthetic bpMRI pretraining outperforms real bpMRI pretraining in AP and AUC up to 12.5 percent external dataset volume, outperforms no pretraining in AUC up to 25 percent external volume, and outperforms prior AxT2-only synthetic pretraining in both data-scarce and full-data scenarios.

What carries the argument

The CCELLA++ LDM pipeline for simultaneous 3D generation of AxT2, HighB, and ADC sequences, used to pretrain classifiers before source-free fine-tuning on external data fractions.

If this is right

  • Synthetic bpMRI pretraining improves AP and AUC over real bpMRI pretraining for external volumes up to 12.5 percent.
  • Synthetic pretraining improves AUC over no pretraining for external volumes up to 25 percent.
  • CCELLA++ multi-sequence synthetics outperform AxT2-only synthetics in both low-data and full-data external settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Locally trained diffusion models may reduce the need to share raw patient scans across institutions for model development.
  • The same pretraining strategy could be tested on other multi-parametric MRI protocols or different cancer sites to address similar scarcity problems.
  • Adding patient metadata or lesion annotations as conditioning inputs during generation might further align synthetic images with downstream clinical tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The generated synthetic images must retain the image features that actually matter for prostate cancer detection so that pretraining on them improves performance on real external scans without adding new biases.

What would settle it

An experiment on a fresh external dataset where a classifier pretrained on CCELLA++ synthetics shows lower AP or AUC than one pretrained on real bpMRI from the source institution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06384 by Babak Taati, Emerson P. Grabke, Masoom A. Haider.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of experimental data flow for both CCELLA++ and domain adaptation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: AP and AUC plots for AxT2-Trained Classifiers Fine-Tuned on Fractions of Institution 2 Data. 1R: Pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: AP and AUC plots for bpMRI-Trained Classifiers Fine-Tuned on Fractions of Institution 2 Data. 1R: Pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example test set exam generated by CCELLA and CCELLA++ (top) using the same unseen radiology report [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AP and AUC Differences for AxT2-only vs bpMRI Training. 1R: Pretrained on Institution 1 real data; 1S: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Objective: Latent diffusion models (LDMs) could mitigate data scarcity challenges affecting machine learning development for medical image interpretation. The recent CCELLA LDM improved prostate cancer detection performance using synthetic MRI for classifier training but was limited to the axial T2-weighted (AxT2) sequence, did not investigate inter-institutional domain shift, and prioritized PI-RADS over histopathology outcomes. Methods: We propose CCELLA++, a novel LDM pipeline for simultaneous 3D biparametric prostate MRI (bpMRI) generation, including the AxT2, high b-value diffusion series (HighB) and apparent diffusion coefficient map (ADC), to overcome these limitations. We investigated source-free domain adaptation with classifiers pretrained on single institution real or LDM-generated synthetic data prior to fine-tuning on fractions of an out-of-distribution, external dataset. Results: CCELLA++ achieved comparable AxT2 Kernel Inception Distance to CCELLA (0.0128, 0.0131 respectively). CCELLA++ synthetic bpMRI pretraining outperformed real bpMRI in AP and AUC up to 12.5% (n<=166) external dataset volume (p<0.01 all), no pretraining in AUC up to 25% external volume (n=332, p<0.05 all), and CCELLA AxT2-only pretraining in both data-scarce (n=83, p<0.001 AP and AUC) and full data (n=1329, p<0.05 AP and AUC) scenarios. Conclusion: CCELLA++ synthetic bpMRI can improve downstream classifier generalization and performance beyond real bpMRI or CCELLA-generated AxT2-only images. Future work should quantify medical image quality, balance bpMRI LDM training, and condition the LDM with additional information. Significance: CCELLA++ can generate synthetic bpMRI that outperforms real data for domain adaptation with data-scarce external institutions, advancing machine learning development for medical imaging. Our code is available at https://github.com/grabkeem/CCELLA-plus-plus

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CCELLA++, a latent diffusion model pipeline for simultaneous generation of 3D biparametric prostate MRI (bpMRI) volumes including axial T2-weighted (AxT2), high b-value diffusion (HighB), and ADC maps. Classifiers are pretrained on real or synthetic single-institution data and then fine-tuned on fractions of an out-of-distribution external dataset for prostate cancer detection using histopathology outcomes. Results report that CCELLA++ synthetic bpMRI pretraining yields higher AP and AUC than real bpMRI pretraining for external volumes up to 12.5% (n≤166, p<0.01), outperforms no pretraining up to 25% volume, and outperforms prior AxT2-only CCELLA pretraining in both low-data and full-data regimes. Code is released publicly.

Significance. If the central performance claims hold under additional validation, the work provides a concrete demonstration that synthetic multi-parametric MRI can mitigate data scarcity and improve generalization in source-free domain adaptation settings. This is relevant for inter-institutional deployment where real paired bpMRI data are limited. Public code release supports reproducibility; the use of external held-out data and p-value reporting are positive elements.

major comments (1)
  1. [Results] Results (quantitative image quality): KID is reported only for AxT2 (0.0128 vs. 0.0131). No equivalent fidelity metric, radiologist lesion-level scoring, or cancer-conditioned ablation is supplied for the HighB or ADC channels. Because the headline claim—that synthetic bpMRI pretraining outperforms real bpMRI—depends on preservation of clinically discriminative diffusion-restriction patterns in these sequences, the absence of modality-specific validation is load-bearing for the central result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: Provide explicit details on patient-level vs. slice-level partitioning, exclusion criteria, and how the external dataset fractions (n=83, n=166, n=332, n=1329) were constructed to enable exact reproduction of the reported curves.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract/Results: State the exact statistical test (e.g., DeLong, paired t-test) used for the p-values and whether correction for multiple comparisons was performed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive assessment of our work, including recognition of the public code release and use of external held-out data. We address the major comment point-by-point below and have incorporated revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results (quantitative image quality): KID is reported only for AxT2 (0.0128 vs. 0.0131). No equivalent fidelity metric, radiologist lesion-level scoring, or cancer-conditioned ablation is supplied for the HighB or ADC channels. Because the headline claim—that synthetic bpMRI pretraining outperforms real bpMRI—depends on preservation of clinically discriminative diffusion-restriction patterns in these sequences, the absence of modality-specific validation is load-bearing for the central result.

    Authors: We agree that modality-specific validation for HighB and ADC is important to support the central claim regarding preservation of diffusion-restriction patterns. In the revised manuscript we have added KID scores for the HighB and ADC channels (computed identically to the AxT2 evaluation), which show comparable fidelity to the real data distribution. We have also included additional qualitative examples and side-by-side visual comparisons of synthetic versus real HighB and ADC slices to illustrate preservation of clinically relevant features. Radiologist lesion-level scoring was not performed in the original study due to the substantial expert time and cost required; we instead use the downstream prostate cancer detection task (with histopathology ground truth) as a functional proxy for clinical utility. A cancer-conditioned ablation was outside the scope of the current unconditional LDM training pipeline, which was deliberately trained on the full unlabeled dataset to maximize data efficiency. We have expanded the limitations section to explicitly discuss these points and have added a forward-looking statement on future conditioned generation. These changes directly address the load-bearing concern while preserving the integrity of the reported results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical results on held-out external data are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper reports experimental comparisons of downstream classifier AP and AUC when pretrained on real bpMRI versus CCELLA++-generated synthetic bpMRI, then fine-tuned on varying fractions of an external OOD dataset and evaluated on held-out test cases. These performance numbers are measured directly from classifier outputs on unseen data and do not reduce to any fitted parameter or self-cited prior result by construction. The only quantitative image-quality metric supplied (AxT2 KID) is a standard distributional distance and is reported as comparable rather than used to derive the main claims. Although the work extends the authors' prior CCELLA paper, that citation is not load-bearing for the new empirical outperformance statements, which rest on fresh source-free domain-adaptation trials. No self-definitional equations, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions in diffusion model training and domain adaptation; no invented physical entities. Free parameters include typical LDM hyperparameters such as noise schedule and conditioning strength, which are fitted during training but not enumerated in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • LDM training hyperparameters
    Standard diffusion model parameters chosen to match data distribution; affect synthetic image quality and downstream performance.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Synthetic images from LDM preserve diagnostic features for prostate cancer classification
    Invoked when claiming pretraining benefit; not proven in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5946 in / 1254 out tokens · 26933 ms · 2026-05-21T23:37:48.965674+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Not-so-supervised: A survey of semi-supervised, multi-instance, and transfer learning in medical image analysis,

    V . Cheplygina, M. De Bruijne, and J. P. Pluim, “Not-so-supervised: A survey of semi-supervised, multi-instance, and transfer learning in medical image analysis,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 54, pp. 280–296, May 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,

    G. Litjens et al., “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 42, pp. 60–88, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Distributed deep learning networks among institutions for medical imaging,

    K. Chang et al., “Distributed deep learning networks among institutions for medical imaging,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 945–954, Aug. 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Transfer learning for medical image classification: A literature review,

    H. E. Kim et al., “Transfer learning for medical image classification: A literature review,”BMC Medical Imaging, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 69, Apr. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    MAISI: Medical AI for Synthetic Imaging,

    P. Guo et al., “MAISI: Medical AI for Synthetic Imaging,” Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Prostate cancer statistics,

    “Prostate cancer statistics,” https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/cancer-statistics/prostate-cancer-statistics/

    work page

  7. [7]

    Magnetic Resonance Imaging–based Biopsy Strategies in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review,

    I. G. Schoots et al., “Magnetic Resonance Imaging–based Biopsy Strategies in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review,”European Urology, Jun. 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A. Stabile et al., “Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review,” European Urol- ogy Oncology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 145–167, Apr. 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): An interna- tional, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study,

    A. Saha et al., “Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): An interna- tional, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study,”The Lancet Oncology, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 879–887, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    A survey of emerging applications of diffusion probabilistic models in MRI,

    Y . Fan et al., “A survey of emerging applications of diffusion probabilistic models in MRI,” Meta-Radiology, vol. 2, no. 2, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Prompt-Guided Latent Diffusion with Predictive Class Conditioning for 3D Prostate MRI Generation,

    E. P. Grabke, M. A. Haider, and B. Taati, “Prompt-Guided Latent Diffusion with Predictive Class Conditioning for 3D Prostate MRI Generation,” Jun. 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Medical diffusion on a budget: Textual Inversion for medical image generation,

    B. D. Wilde et al., “Medical diffusion on a budget: Textual Inversion for medical image generation,” pp. 1–20, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Bi-parametric prostate MR image synthesis using pathology and sequence-conditioned stable diffusion,

    S. U. Saeed et al., “Bi-parametric prostate MR image synthesis using pathology and sequence-conditioned stable diffusion,” Mar. 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    F. Pesapane et al., “Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate mri in the detection of prostate cancer in 431 men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels,” Diagnostics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 73–83, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System. Version 2.1,

    American College of Radiology, “PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System. Version 2.1,” 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models,

    R. Rombach et al., “High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models,”arXiv.org, Dec. 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey,

    A. Kazerouni et al., “Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 88, no. November 2022, p. 102846, Aug. 2023

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    CoLa-Diff: Conditional Latent Diffusion Model for Multi-Modal MRI Synthesis,

    L. Jiang et al., “CoLa-Diff: Conditional Latent Diffusion Model for Multi-Modal MRI Synthesis,” Mar. 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Cross-conditioned Diffusion Model for Medical Image to Image Translation,

    Z. Xing et al., “Cross-conditioned Diffusion Model for Medical Image to Image Translation,” Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Physics-Informed Latent Diffusion for Multimodal Brain MRI Synthesis,

    S. L ¨upke et al., “Physics-Informed Latent Diffusion for Multimodal Brain MRI Synthesis,” Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    A Survey on Transfer Learning,

    S. J. Pan and Q. Yang, “A Survey on Transfer Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineer- ing, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1345–1359, Oct. 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    A unifying view on dataset shift in classification,

    J. G. Moreno-Torres et al., “A unifying view on dataset shift in classification,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 521–530, Jan. 2012

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Domain Adaptation for Medical Image Analysis: A Survey,

    H. Guan and M. Liu, “Domain Adaptation for Medical Image Analysis: A Survey,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1173–1185, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Artificial intelligence–assisted prostate cancer diagnosis: Radiologic-pathologic correlation,

    L. A. Mata et al., “Artificial intelligence–assisted prostate cancer diagnosis: Radiologic-pathologic correlation,” Radiographics, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1676–1697, Oct. 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    A Closer Look at Few-shot Classification,

    W.-Y . Chenet al., “A Closer Look at Few-shot Classification,” Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    A Baseline for Few-Shot Image Classification,

    G. S. Dhillon et al., “A Baseline for Few-Shot Image Classification,” Oct. 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    A Transfer Learning Approach for Automated Segmentation of Prostate Whole Gland and Transition Zone in Diffusion Weighted MRI,

    S. Motamed et al., “A Transfer Learning Approach for Automated Segmentation of Prostate Whole Gland and Transition Zone in Diffusion Weighted MRI,” Sep. 2019. 10 CCELLA++: Multi-Sequence 3D Prostate MRI Generation for Domain Adaptation A PREPRINT

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Training Strategies for Radiology Deep Learning Models in Data-limited Scenarios,

    S. Candemir et al., “Training Strategies for Radiology Deep Learning Models in Data-limited Scenarios,” Radi- ology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 6, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Brugnara et al

    G. Brugnara et al. , “Addressing the Generalizability of AI in Radiology Using a Novel Data Augmentation Framework with Synthetic Patient Image Data: Proof-of-Concept and External Validation for Classification Tasks in Multiple Sclerosis,”Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 6, p. e230514, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Prostate158 - An expert-annotated 3T MRI dataset and algorithm for prostate cancer detec- tion,

    L. C. Adams et al., “Prostate158 - An expert-annotated 3T MRI dataset and algorithm for prostate cancer detec- tion,”Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 148, no. 2022, p. 105817, Sep. 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models,

    H. W. Chung et al., “Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models,” Dec. 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium,

    M. Heusel et al., “GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Med3D: Transfer Learning for 3D Medical Image Analysis,

    S. Chen, K. Ma, and Y . Zheng, “Med3D: Transfer Learning for 3D Medical Image Analysis,” Jul. 2019

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    RadImageNet: An Open Radiologic Deep Learning Research Dataset for Effective Transfer Learning,

    X. Mei et al. , “RadImageNet: An Open Radiologic Deep Learning Research Dataset for Effective Transfer Learning,”Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 5, p. e210315, Sep. 2022. 11

    work page 2022