REVIEW 1 cited by
Flow Matching for Medical Image Synthesis: Bridging the Gap Between Speed and Quality
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Deep learning models have emerged as a powerful tool for various medical applications. However, their success depends on large, high-quality datasets that are challenging to obtain due to privacy concerns and costly annotation. Generative models, such as diffusion models, offer a potential solution by synthesizing medical images, but their practical adoption is hindered by long inference times. In this paper, we propose the use of an optimal transport flow matching approach to accelerate image generation. By introducing a straighter mapping between the source and target distribution, our method significantly reduces inference time while preserving and further enhancing the quality of the outputs. Furthermore, this approach is highly adaptable, supporting various medical imaging modalities, conditioning mechanisms (such as class labels and masks), and different spatial dimensions, including 2D and 3D. Beyond image generation, it can also be applied to related tasks such as image enhancement. Our results demonstrate the efficiency and versatility of this framework, making it a promising advancement for medical imaging applications. Code with checkpoints and a synthetic dataset (beneficial for classification and segmentation) is now available on: https://github.com/milad1378yz/MOTFM.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Benchmarking GANs, Diffusion Models, and Flow Matching for T1w-to-T2w MRI Translation
The GAN-based Pix2Pix model outperformed diffusion and flow matching models in a standardized T1w-to-T2w brain MRI translation benchmark on three datasets.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.