VAP-Diffusion: Enriching Descriptions with MLLMs for Enhanced Medical Image Generation

Bowen Guo; Junhu Fu; Peng Huang; Yi Guo; Yuanyuan Wang; Zeju Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

VAP-Diffusion: Enriching Descriptions with MLLMs for Enhanced Medical Image Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that conditioning a diffusion model on MLLM-generated visual attribute descriptions—shape, color, size, and texture—makes medical image generation more realistic and diverse, and that synthetic images from it improve…

desk verdict Useful diversity and downstream gains, but the grounding claim for the MLLM prompts is unvalidated and the realism claim conflicts with the paper's own FID/precision numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23641 v1 pith:TR5M2T74 submitted 2025-06-30 cs.CV cs.AI

Peng Huang , Junhu Fu , Bowen Guo , Zeju Li , Yuanyuan Wang , Yi Guo This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords MedicalimagegenerationDiffusionmodelsMultimodallargelanguageVisualattributepromptsChain-of-thoughtpromptingDataaugmentationDermoscopicimagingChestX-ray

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

VAP-Diffusion is a medical image generator that conditions a diffusion model on fine-grained visual attribute descriptions produced by a pre-trained multimodal large language model (MLLM), rather than on class labels alone. The paper argues that this added text guidance splits the hard problem of modeling an entire class distribution into many narrower attribute subproblems, making generated skin lesion, chest X-ray, and colonoscopy images more realistic and more diverse. Because descriptions are unavailable at test time, the method stores per-class descriptions in a prompt bank and uses a prototype mechanism to keep arbitrary test descriptions close to training conditions. The authors report that VAP-Diffusion beats existing generators on FID, Inception Score, precision, and recall, and that its synthetic images improve downstream classification, especially with only 1% or 10% of real data available.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is Visual Attribute Prompt Strategy (VAPS), a three-question chain-of-thought protocol that first asks the MLLM for an uninterpreted description of the image, then for the possible manifestations of shape, color, size, and texture in that imaging modality, and finally for a concise image-grounded summary. The Class-Specific Prompt Bank (CSPB) stores these descriptions per category and randomly retrieves one at inference, so no description is needed at test time. The Prototype Condition Mechanism (PCM) builds a trainable prototype vector per class, forces it to reconstruct the noisy encoder features through cross-attention, and uses a zero-initialized linear layer to inject the text prior gradually, which keeps test-time embeddings close to training prototypes. These modules sit on top of a latent diffusion backbone with UViT as the denoising network and BiomedCLIP as the text encoder.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of medical images, run VAPS to obtain descriptions, and compare those descriptions with expert-annotated attributes or human ratings for the same images; if the descriptions frequently disagree with the images, the grounding claim fails. A complementary check is to swap the prompt bank with random or mismatched attribute text and keep the pipeline otherwise identical: if FID, recall, and downstream gains do not deteriorate, the reported improvement is an effect of text conditioning in general, not of correct visual attribute guidance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MLLM-generated textual descriptions of visual attributes—shape, color, size, and texture—provide a richer and more usable conditioning signal for medical image diffusion than class labels alone. VAP-Diffusion obtains these descriptions through a three-stage chain-of-thought prompt strategy, stores them per class, and trains a UViT latent diffusion model conditioned on their BiomedCLIP embeddings. At inference, a description is sampled from the class-specific bank, and a prototype condition mechanism keeps the text embedding near the training prototypes of that class so unseen or freely written descriptions remain valid. The paper reports consistently better realism and diversity than StyleGAN, LDM, DiT, and other baselines on four datasets from three modalities, and shows that augmenting classifiers with its synthetic images yields mAUC and F1 improvements, up to 11.9 percent, when real data are scarce.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the MLLM descriptions are genuinely grounded in the images, so the text condition carries correct attribute information rather than plausible but unrelated language; the paper motivates VAPS as reducing hallucination but never measures description accuracy against ground truth, human ratings, or a baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, medical image generators can obtain fine-grained visual conditions automatically from MLLMs, without manual attribute annotation.
Classifiers trained with VAP-Diffusion synthetic data should improve most in low-data regimes; the paper demonstrates gains at 1% and 10% real-data ratios on ISIC2018, ChestXray14, and colonoscopy data.
Because descriptions are stored in a per-class bank and test embeddings are pulled toward training prototypes, deployment does not require re-running the MLLM or having a real description at hand.
The same three-module recipe—attribute prompting, a prompt bank, and prototype regularization—should transfer to other medical modalities that can be described by shape, color, size, and texture, once question templates are adapted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural test the paper does not run is per-attribute controllability: generate images conditioned on one specific attribute value, such as an irregular border or light color, and check with an attribute classifier or human reader whether that property appears more often than chance.
The reported downstream gains are largest for scarce-data settings, which suggests a focused extension: use the prompt bank as a balanced sampler to explicitly augment minority classes in imbalanced skin lesion and chest X-ray datasets.
Because the paper never measures description accuracy against expert labels, an immediate research step is to compare VAPS outputs with existing attribute annotations in dermoscopic datasets; that would separate genuine attribute grounding from generic text-conditioning benefits.
The prototype mechanism could be tested as an interpretability tool: the learned per-class prototypes encode what the model thinks are typical attribute combinations, so inspecting them may reveal which textual attributes the MLLM and the generator rely on most.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know first. The downstream classification results are the real contribution: across dermoscopy, chest X-ray, and colonoscopy, augmenting with VAP-Diffusion synthetic images beats StyleGAN-augmented training, especially at 1% and 10% real data, with gains up to ~12 points on some metrics. Second, the paper's headline claim that it achieves "the best generation results" does not survive its own Table 1: StyleGAN has better FID on three of four datasets and better Precision on three of four. The method wins big on Recall and IS, so the honest claim is diversity and downstream utility, not overall realism.

What's new: the specific combination of chain-of-thought visual attribute prompts, a class-specific prompt bank, and a prototype condition mechanism is new, and the framework is sensible and reproducible in principle. The ablations show both VAPS and PCM matter, and the prototype-based robustness idea is neat.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The main one is that VAPS's "grounded" claim is never actually tested. The paper motivates VAPS as reducing hallucination, but it never measures description accuracy against human ratings, ground truth, or any image-text alignment metric. The only ablation (w/o VAPS) removes text conditioning entirely, so it cannot separate accurate attribute guidance from any per-sample text condition. The stress-test is right: a control that keeps text conditioning but uses arbitrary or shuffled descriptions would be needed to support the grounding story. Until then, the gains in diversity and downstream classification could simply come from varying text conditions, which is still useful but not what the abstract claims.

Other soft spots are more minor. The MLLM is never named, which matters because different MLLMs have very different hallucination rates. The exact VAPS prompts for colorectal and chest X-ray are not included, only the dermatology example. There are no error bars or significance tests anywhere. The github URL exists but no code or commit is visible. And the "unseen descriptions" evaluation samples from the same training distribution, so it is not truly out-of-distribution.

Who this is for: a medical imaging audience using generative models for data augmentation or data sharing. The downstream evidence is strong enough to take seriously. With a grounding control, error bars, and a named MLLM, this could be a solid MICCAI-style paper. As is, it deserves peer review, but reviewers should push for those fixes and the authors should temper the "best generation results" claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VAP-Diffusion, a diffusion-based medical image generator that conditions on visual attribute descriptions produced by a pre-trained multimodal large language model (MLLM). The method has three components: VAPS, a chain-of-thought prompting strategy meant to elicit grounded descriptions; CSPB, a per-class bank of stored descriptions used as test-time conditions; and PCM, a prototype-conditioning mechanism that regularizes test-time text embeddings toward training prototypes. The approach is evaluated on four medical image datasets (ISIC2018, ISIC2019, ChestXray14, and a colonoscopy database) with FID, IS, Precision, Recall, and downstream classification mAUC/F1 metrics. The paper reports consistent improvements in diversity (IS, Recall) and in downstream classification performance over StyleGAN and several diffusion baselines, and ablation experiments indicate that removing VAPS or PCM degrades performance.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a practical way to inject fine-grained attribute information into medical image synthesis without manual annotation, with a credible downstream data-augmentation benefit. Strengths include the breadth of evaluation across three modalities, the ablations showing that VAPS and PCM each contribute, and the reproducible code repository link. The main limitation is that the paper's realism claims are only partially supported by its own metrics: VAP-Diffusion is worse than StyleGAN in FID on three of four datasets and worse in Precision on two datasets. In addition, the claim that VAPS yields hallucination-free, image-grounded descriptions is never directly validated. The paper is a useful contribution to medical image generation if these issues are addressed, but at present the evidence is not fully commensurate with the conclusions.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Table 1; §4] The conclusion that VAP-Diffusion 'achieves the best generation results' is not supported by Table 1. StyleGAN achieves better FID on ISIC2018 (16.968 vs 19.790), ISIC2019 (23.725 vs 25.232), and ChestXray14 (36.221 vs 40.487), and better Precision on ISIC2019 (0.457 vs 0.416) and Colonoscopy (0.464 vs 0.405). The paper claims 'more realistic and diverse' generation, but on the realism metrics VAP-Diffusion is not consistently superior. Please revise the claim to describe a fidelity-diversity trade-off, or provide additional evidence (e.g., tuned StyleGAN baselines at the same resolution and training budget) to justify the realism claim.
[§2.2, §3.2, Table 2] The central claim that VAPS produces 'accurate and informative descriptions' and mitigates hallucination is never tested. The paper reports no measure of description accuracy against ground-truth annotations, human ratings, or image-text alignment. The only ablation (w/o VAPS) removes text conditioning entirely, reverting to the UViT baseline, so it cannot distinguish the contribution of image-grounded attribute prompts from the contribution of any per-sample text condition. A control that keeps text conditioning but breaks image grounding (e.g., randomly reassigning descriptions across images, or using generic class-level templates) is necessary before attributing the gains to correct visual attribute guidance.
[§2.3, §2.4, Table 2] The evaluation protocol for 'unseen input texts' is underspecified. The prompt bank is built from training images, and Table 2 states that VAP-Diffusion is evaluated with unseen texts, but the paper never states whether the test prompt bank is disjoint from the training prompt bank, how many prompts are sampled per class, or how the class distribution of the unseen prompts is controlled. Without a clear train/test split over descriptions and a description-level leakage check, the robustness claim for PCM against out-of-distribution text inputs is not established.
[§3 overall] Several load-bearing implementation details are missing: the specific pre-trained MLLM used in VAPS is never named, the value of the balancing term α in Eq. (3) is not given, training hyperparameters (resolution, batch size, diffusion steps, number of training images) are omitted, and the protocols for computing FID/IS/Precision/Recall and for training the downstream classifiers are not described. These details are necessary to reproduce the reported numbers and to assess the fairness of the comparisons across methods.

minor comments (4)

[§2.2] The notation 't2 = MLLM(Question2)' suggests the second prompting step does not receive the input image X0; if Question2 is meant to be used together with the image, the equation should be 't2 = MLLM(X0, Question2)' for consistency with Question1 and Question3.
[Table 2] Table 2 reports FID=26.767 for VAP-Diffusion on ISIC2018, while Table 1 reports 19.790 for the same dataset. The difference is presumably due to the unseen-text evaluation setting, but this should be stated directly in the table caption to avoid confusion.
[References] Reference [16] is cited both for hallucination and for chain-of-thought prompting, but [16] is the chain-of-thought paper; please add a dedicated hallucination reference. Also, references [10] and [29] are the same paper (Rombach et al., LDM) and should be consolidated.
[Fig. 2] The red arrows indicating repetitive content in StyleGAN images are difficult to discern at the current figure resolution; higher-resolution crops would make the qualitative comparison more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the results are empirical comparisons against external baselines, and the only noted limitation is an unvalidated description-grounding confound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

VAP-Diffusion's central results are empirical comparisons of generated images and downstream classifiers against external baselines (StyleGAN, CBDM, LDM, DiT, UViT) in Table 1 and Table 3, with FID, IS, Precision, Recall, and classification metrics computed on held-out test data. The test-time prompt bank in Section 2.3 samples descriptions generated from training images, and Section 2.4's prototype mechanism constrains test embeddings to be near training prototypes; this is a design choice for handling conditioning inputs, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The claim in Section 2.2 that VAPS reduces hallucination is not directly validated by a ground-truth description metric, and the ablation in Table 2 removes all text conditioning (returning to the UViT baseline) rather than isolating the grounding of attribute prompts. That is an experimental confound about what causes the gains, not a circular derivation in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The only author-group prior work cited, reference [8] on Chest-Diffusion, appears in related-context citations and is not load-bearing for the VAP-Diffusion derivation. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled through self-citation, or renaming of a known result as a new contribution was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No novel physical entities or ad hoc fitted constants are introduced beyond the hand-chosen alpha term. The main assumptions are that MLLM descriptions are faithful and that the text encoder and diffusion backbone transfer to the target medical domains.

free parameters (1)

alpha = not reported
Balancing term for the prototype reconstruction loss L_recon in Eq. (3); chosen by hand and not ablated or specified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pretrained MLLM descriptions, after VAPS prompting, are sufficiently accurate and informative to improve medical image generation.
Assumed in Section 2.2 and not validated against ground truth or human ratings; no hallucination rate is reported.
domain assumption BiomedCLIP text embeddings capture the visual attributes needed by the diffusion model.
Section 2.2 uses BiomedCLIP to encode descriptions without evidence that this text encoder aligns well with medical image attributes.
domain assumption UViT and latent diffusion backbones provide a strong enough base for the conditioning improvements to show.
VAP-Diffusion is built on UViT; no comparison against a different backbone is provided.
standard math Standard diffusion forward and reverse equations and the denoising objective apply as written.
Equations (1) and (2) are the standard DDPM formulation, which is accepted background.

invented entities (2)

Class-specific prompt bank (CSPB)
purpose: Stores MLLM-generated attribute descriptions per class and randomly retrieves one at inference time.
Introduced by the authors as a new component; it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper's reported experiments.
Prototype condition mechanism (PCM) class prototypes
purpose: Learned per-class prototypes that keep test text embeddings close to training embeddings.
Learned internal representations with no external evidence or prediction attached.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VAP-Diffusion: Enriching Descriptions with MLLMs for Enhanced Medical Image Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TR5M2T74

@misc{pith2026250623641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VAP-Diffusion: Enriching Descriptions with MLLMs for Enhanced Medical Image Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TR5M2T74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23641}
}

read the original abstract

As the appearance of medical images is influenced by multiple underlying factors, generative models require rich attribute information beyond labels to produce realistic and diverse images. For instance, generating an image of skin lesion with specific patterns demands descriptions that go beyond diagnosis, such as shape, size, texture, and color. However, such detailed descriptions are not always accessible. To address this, we explore a framework, termed Visual Attribute Prompts (VAP)-Diffusion, to leverage external knowledge from pre-trained Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to improve the quality and diversity of medical image generation. First, to derive descriptions from MLLMs without hallucination, we design a series of prompts following Chain-of-Thoughts for common medical imaging tasks, including dermatologic, colorectal, and chest X-ray images. Generated descriptions are utilized during training and stored across different categories. During testing, descriptions are randomly retrieved from the corresponding category for inference. Moreover, to make the generator robust to unseen combination of descriptions at the test time, we propose a Prototype Condition Mechanism that restricts test embeddings to be similar to those from training. Experiments on three common types of medical imaging across four datasets verify the effectiveness of VAP-Diffusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23641 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visual comparison of image synthesis results with StyleGAN. (a) Derma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Medical Image Analysis 92, 103046 (2024)

Dayarathna, S., Islam, K.T., Uribe, S., Yang, G., Hayat, M., Chen, Z.: Deep learning based synthesis of MRI, CT and PET: Review and analysis. Medical Image Analysis 92, 103046 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

Communications of the ACM 63(11), 139–144 (2020)

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM 63(11), 139–144 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784 (2014)

Mirza, M.: Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784 (2014)

arXiv 2014
[4]

Science Advances 6(49), eabb7973 (2020)

Han,T.,Nebelung,S.,Haarburger,C.,Horst,N.,Reinartz,S.,Merhof,D.,Kiessling, F., Schulz, V., Truhn, D.: Breaking medical data sharing boundaries by using syn- thesized radiographs. Science Advances 6(49), eabb7973 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

TMI (2023)

Özbey, M., Dalmaz, O., Dar, S.U.H., Bedel, H.A., Özturk, Ş., Güngör, A., Çukur, T.: Unsupervised medical image translation with adversarial diffusion models. TMI (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Nature Medicine, 1–8 (2024)

Ktena, I., Wiles, O., Albuquerque, I., Rebuffi, S.-A., Tanno, R., Roy, A.G., Azizi, S., Belgrave, D., Kohli, P., Cemgil, T., et al.: Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts. Nature Medicine, 1–8 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Scientific Reports 13(1), 12098 (2023)

Müller-Franzes, G., Niehues, J.M., Khader, F., Arasteh, S.T., Haarburger, C., Kuhl, C., Wang, T., Han, T., Nolte, T., Nebelung, S., et al.: A multimodal comparison of latent denoising diffusion probabilistic models and generative adversarial networks for medical image synthesis. Scientific Reports 13(1), 12098 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

In: ISBI, pp

Huang, P., Gao, X., Huang, L., Jiao, J., Li, X., Wang, Y., Guo, Y.: Chest-Diffusion: A Light-Weight Text-to-Image Model for Report-to-CXR Generation. In: ISBI, pp. 1–5 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 33 references

[9]

In: NeurIPS, vol 33, pp

Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In: NeurIPS, vol 33, pp. 6840–6851 (2020)

2020
[10]

In: CVPR, pp

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: CVPR, pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

2022
[11]

In: MICCAI, pp

Han, K., Xiong, Y., You, C., Khosravi, P., Sun, S., Yan, X., Duncan, J.S., Xie, X.: Medgen3d: A deep generative framework for paired 3D image and mask generation. In: MICCAI, pp. 759–769 (2023)

2023
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03364 (2022) 10 F

Khader, F., Mueller-Franzes, G., Arasteh, S.T., Han, T., Haarburger, C., Schulze- Hagen, M., Schad, P., Engelhardt, S., Baessler, B., Foersch, S., et al.: Medical dif- fusion: denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3D medical image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.0...

2022 arXiv
[13]

Nature Biomedical Engineering, 1–13 (2024)

Bluethgen, C., Chambon, P., Delbrouck, J.-B., van der Sluijs, R., Połacin, M., Zambrano Chaves, J.M., Abraham, T.M., Purohit, S., Langlotz, C.P., Chaudhari, A.S.: A vision–language foundation model for the generation of realistic chest X-ray images. Nature Biomedical Engineeri...

2024
[14]

In: ICML, pp

Li, J., Li, D., Xiong, C., Hoi, S.: BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In: ICML, pp. 12888– 12900 (2022)

2022
[15]

In: CVPR, pp

Chen, B., Xu, Z., Kirmani, S., Ichter, B., Sadigh, D., Guibas, L., Xia, F.: Spa- tialVLM: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. In: CVPR, pp. 14455–14465 (2024)

2024
[16]

In: NeurIPS, vol 35, pp

Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., et al.: Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In: NeurIPS, vol 35, pp. 24824–24837 (2022)

2022
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00915 (2023)

Zhang, S., Xu, Y., Usuyama, N., Xu, H., Bagga, J., Tinn, R., Preston, S., Rao, R., Wei, M., Valluri, N., et al.: BiomedCLIP: A multimodal biomedical founda- tion model pretrained from fifteen million scientific image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00915 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03368 (2019)

Codella, N., Rotemberg, V., Tschandl, P., Celebi, M.E., Dusza, S., Gutman, D., Helba, B., Kalloo, A., Liopyris, K., Marchetti, M., et al.: Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC). arXiv prep...

2019 arXiv
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02288 (2019)

Combalia,M.,Codella,N.C.F.,Rotemberg,V.,Helba,B.,Vilaplana,V.,Reiter,O., Carrera, C., Barreiro, A., Halpern, A.C., Puig, S., et al.: BCN20000: Dermoscopic lesions in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02288 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[20]

In: CVPR, pp

Wang, X., Peng, Y., Lu, L., Lu, Z., Bagheri, M., Summers, R.M.: ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale chest X-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classifi- cation and localization of common thorax diseases. In: CVPR, pp. 2097–2106 (2017)

2017
[21]

PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0255809 (2021)

Li,K.,Fathan,M.I.,Patel,K.,Zhang,T.,Zhong,C.,Bansal,A.,Rastogi,A.,Wang, J.S., Wang, G.: Colonoscopy polyp detection and classification: Dataset creation and comparative evaluations. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0255809 (2021)

2021
[22]

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 93(4), 960–967 (2021)

Misawa, M., Kudo, S., Mori, Y., Hotta, K., Ohtsuka, K., Matsuda, T., Saito, S., Kudo, T., Baba, T., Ishida, F., et al.: Development of a computer-aided detection system for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video database (with video). Gastrointestinal En...

2021
[23]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (TMI), 35(9), 2051–2063 (2016)

Mesejo, P., Pizarro, D., Abergel, A., Rouquette, O., Beorchia, S., Poincloux, L., Bartoli, A.: Computer-aided classification of gastrointestinal lesions in regu- lar colonoscopy. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (TMI), 35(9), 2051–2063 (2016)

2016
[24]

In: NeurIPS, vol 30 (2017)

Heusel, M., Ramsauer, H., Unterthiner, T., Nessler, B., Hochreiter, S.: GANs trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local Nash equilibrium. In: NeurIPS, vol 30 (2017)

2017
[25]

In: NeurIPS, vol 31 (2018)

Sajjadi, M.S.M., Bachem, O., Lucic, M., Bousquet, O., Gelly, S.: Assessing gener- ative models via precision and recall. In: NeurIPS, vol 31 (2018)

2018
[26]

In: NeurIPS, vol 29 (2016)

Salimans, T., Goodfellow, I., Zaremba, W., Cheung, V., Radford, A., Chen, X.: Improved techniques for training GANs. In: NeurIPS, vol 29 (2016)

2016
[27]

In: NeurIPS, vol 34, pp

Karras, T., Aittala, M., Laine, S., Härkönen, E., Hellsten, J., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T.: Alias-free generative adversarial networks. In: NeurIPS, vol 34, pp. 852–863 (2021)

2021
[28]

In: CVPR, pp

Qin, Y., Zheng, H., Yao, J., Zhou, M., Zhang, Y.: Class-balancing diffusion models. In: CVPR, pp. 18434–18443 (2023)

2023
[29]

In: CVPR, pp

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: CVPR, pp. 10684–10695 (2022) VAP-Diffusion 11

2022
[30]

In: CVPR, pp

Peebles, W., Xie, S.: Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In: CVPR, pp. 4195–4205 (2023)

2023
[31]

In: CVPR, pp

Bao, F., Nie, S., Xue, K., Cao, Y., Li, C., Su, H., Zhu, J.: All are worth words: A ViT backbone for diffusion models. In: CVPR, pp. 22669–22679 (2023)

2023
[32]

In: CVPR, pp

Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., Weinberger, K.Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In: CVPR, pp. 4700–4708 (2017)

2017
[33]

In: ECCV, pp

Tu, Z., Talebi, H., Zhang, H., Yang, F., Milanfar, P., Bovik, A., Li, Y.: MaxViT: Multi-axis vision transformer. In: ECCV, pp. 459–479 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Medical Image Analysis 92, 103046 (2024)

Dayarathna, S., Islam, K.T., Uribe, S., Yang, G., Hayat, M., Chen, Z.: Deep learning based synthesis of MRI, CT and PET: Review and analysis. Medical Image Analysis 92, 103046 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Communications of the ACM 63(11), 139–144 (2020)

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM 63(11), 139–144 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784 (2014)

Mirza, M.: Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784 (2014)

arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

Science Advances 6(49), eabb7973 (2020)

Han,T.,Nebelung,S.,Haarburger,C.,Horst,N.,Reinartz,S.,Merhof,D.,Kiessling, F., Schulz, V., Truhn, D.: Breaking medical data sharing boundaries by using syn- thesized radiographs. Science Advances 6(49), eabb7973 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [5]

TMI (2023)

Özbey, M., Dalmaz, O., Dar, S.U.H., Bedel, H.A., Özturk, Ş., Güngör, A., Çukur, T.: Unsupervised medical image translation with adversarial diffusion models. TMI (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Nature Medicine, 1–8 (2024)

Ktena, I., Wiles, O., Albuquerque, I., Rebuffi, S.-A., Tanno, R., Roy, A.G., Azizi, S., Belgrave, D., Kohli, P., Cemgil, T., et al.: Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts. Nature Medicine, 1–8 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Scientific Reports 13(1), 12098 (2023)

Müller-Franzes, G., Niehues, J.M., Khader, F., Arasteh, S.T., Haarburger, C., Kuhl, C., Wang, T., Han, T., Nolte, T., Nebelung, S., et al.: A multimodal comparison of latent denoising diffusion probabilistic models and generative adversarial networks for medical image synthesis. Scientific Reports 13(1), 12098 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

In: ISBI, pp

Huang, P., Gao, X., Huang, L., Jiao, J., Li, X., Wang, Y., Guo, Y.: Chest-Diffusion: A Light-Weight Text-to-Image Model for Report-to-CXR Generation. In: ISBI, pp. 1–5 (2024)

work page 2024