In-batch Relational Features Enhance Precision in An Unsupervised Medical Anomaly Detection Task

Dongmei Yu; Ijaz Gul; Jinhao Xu; Lian Zhang; P. Bilha Githinji; Peiwu Qin

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 18 references

In-batch Relational Features Enhance Precision in An Unsupervised Medical Anomaly Detection Task

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding batch-level neighborhood context to an autoencoder's latent code raises brain-MRI anomaly detection precision by 16 points.

desk verdict A plausible new idea with a serious evaluation gap: the paper never specifies how the batch-dependent module is run at test time, so the headline AP/AUC gains may be an artifact of mixed-class test batches. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.05534 v2 pith:EKY5X5C4 submitted 2026-03-03 q-bio.QM eess.IV

P. Bilha Githinji , Ijaz Gul , Lian Zhang , Jinhao Xu , Peiwu Qin , Dongmei Yu This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.QMeess.IV

keywords unsupervisedanomalydetectionbrainMRIautoencodergraphconvolutionhypergraphpopulation-awareembeddingfalsepositivereductionlatentspaceregularization

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

This paper tries to solve the false-positive problem in unsupervised medical anomaly detection, where a model trained only on healthy images flags normal anatomical variation as disease. Its claim is that false positives shrink when the autoencoder's latent code is augmented with relational features from other healthy images in the same batch, using a similarity hypergraph and a shared-weight graph-convolution layer. On a heterogeneous set of 2D brain-MRI slices, this population-aware embedding raises AUC-ROC from 0.84 to 0.90 and average precision from 0.62 to 0.78, a 16-point absolute gain. The paper further shows the benefit grows with the neighborhood size k, up to 70% of the batch, and that the induced latent space becomes linearly separable for downstream tumor classification. If correct, the method offers a non-intrusive way to make existing autoencoders more precise without changing their architecture.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an in-batch k-uniform similarity hypergraph—a graph whose nodes are the latent codes of the images in one training batch and whose edges link each node to its k nearest neighbours—combined with a single shared-weight graph-convolution layer placed inside the autoencoder bottleneck. The hypergraph encodes the local manifold of healthy variation; the GCN aggregates neighboring healthy codes into a neighborhood feature zh, and the augmented latent code is the concatenation of the original code and zh, projected back to the decoder's input size. Because the graph is re-estimated from each mini-batch, the population context is dynamic rather than a fixed memory bank; the

What would settle it

Run the same trained model at inference with batch size 1 (no relational context) and with batches composed only of pathological images; if AUC/AP stay near 0.90/0.78, the gain is not due to relational context; if they drop to baseline, the reported gains depend entirely on the hidden composition of the evaluation batch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that reconstruction-based anomaly detection fails on precision because each image is encoded in isolation, so the model cannot tell healthy anatomical variation from pathology. The authors insert a population-aware module into the autoencoder's bottleneck: for each mini-batch of B images they build a k-uniform similarity hypergraph whose nodes are the images and whose edges connect each node to its k nearest neighbours in latent space; a single shared-weight graph-convolution layer aggregates those neighbour codes, and the augmented code zg = Θp(ze ‖ σ(zh)) is what the decoder sees. Trained on healthy slices only, this relational regularization improves separatio

Load-bearing premise

The module exists only when a batch of images is available to build the hypergraph; the paper never specifies how the held-out evaluation was batched or how a single image would be deployed, so if test-time context is absent the method degenerates to the baseline, and if test batches mix healthy and pathological images the 'normal cohort' premise is violated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With a sufficiently large k (70% of the batch), both AUC and average precision improve significantly; with a smaller k (35%), AUC is unchanged though AP improves slightly, indicating graceful degradation rather than harm.
The precision gain (16-point AP) is bigger than the overall separability gain (5.7-point AUC), so the module's main effect is reducing false positives at the operating points a clinician would use.
The population-aware latent space is more linearly separable: a logistic regression on zg reaches F1 0.72 vs 0.22 on ze, so the same codes can serve downstream classification.
Since performance rises monotonically with k, batch size and neighborhood fraction become tunable levers; the results suggest larger batches or larger context could push metrics further.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves test-time batching unspecified; a fair deployment would need either a stored healthy reference set (which turns the dynamic hypergraph into something like a memory bank) or a stated rule for how single images are scored. Until the evaluation protocol is described, part of the reported gain could come from how the held-out batch is composed.
If inference batches deliberately mix healthy and pathological images, the hypergraph's k-nearest-neighbour aggregation could leak label information into the augmented code; an ablation with pathology-free test batches would delimit how much of the AP gain is genuine population-awareness versus accidental context leakage.
Because k is defined relative to batch size, scaling the method to larger batches is constrained by GPU memory (the authors train on 80 GB of RAM); stochastic or sub-sampled neighbor selection would be a natural next step.
A direct comparison with a memory-bank autoencoder under identical conditions would clarify whether dynamic hypergraph context is better than static prototypes for precision.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 to know. First, the core idea — batch-wise hypergraph message passing in the bottleneck of a reconstruction autoencoder, trained only on normals, to inject population context — is genuinely new relative to memory-bank and prototype-based methods. It is a sensible place to look if false positives from normal anatomical variation are the problem. Second, the empirical claim is not supported as written because the paper never says how the module is batched at inference. The bootstrap procedure draws 150 samples stratified by class, which suggests mixed healthy/pathological test batches. If so, the augmented code for every image depends on the class composition of the draw, making the comparison to an independently-encoded baseline not apples-to-apples. The reported 5.7-point AUC and 16-point AP gains could then be transductive leakage rather than a better normal manifold.

What the paper does well: the authors train only on normals, report bootstrapped CIs and p-values, run a sensitivity analysis on k, and are honest that the module does not suppress reconstruction of anomalous regions. The sensitivity analysis showing small-k gives no AUC gain while large-k is needed is informative.

The main soft spot is the evaluation protocol. The anomaly score is never defined (MSE? SSIM? a combination?). Test-time batching is unspecified. If each bootstrap draw is processed as a mixed batch, the module leaks class composition into the score; if scores are precomputed per image, the module degenerates because it needs a batch. Either way the paper needs to state and justify the protocol. Relatedly, k=0.7B was selected after seeing test-set performance — that is parameter selection on the evaluation set. There is also a concrete overclaim in Section 4.4: the text says large-k is best on the two non-monotonic clustering metrics, but Table 2 shows homogeneity for plain AE (0.15) is higher than large-k (0.13). Small, but it is an error. The clustering metrics are weak overall, with overlapping CIs. No code or data are provided, so I cannot verify the numbers. Patient-level split is not discussed, though the Kaggle dataset may not contain patient IDs.

Who this is for: people working on relational inductive biases for reconstruction-based anomaly detection. It is not a field re-organizer, and the significance if true is moderate. It deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject, but my recommendation is a request for the missing evaluation details and a reanalysis with a properly defined reference cohort before the gains are accepted.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes augmenting the latent representation of a CNN autoencoder with a relational module for unsupervised anomaly detection in 2D brain MRI. For each training mini-batch, a k-uniform similarity-based hypergraph is estimated over latent codes; a single GCN message-passing layer aggregates features from the k-nearest neighbors, and the augmented code is fed to the decoder. Training uses only normal images with MSE+SSIM reconstruction loss. On a brain-tumor MRI dataset, the authors report that their module improves AUC-ROC from 0.84 to 0.90 and average precision from 0.62 to 0.78, with a further downstream linear-classification gain. A sensitivity analysis varies k = 0, 0.35B, 0.70B and concludes that larger context improves discrimination and latent structure.

Significance. If the reported gains are valid, the proposal is a useful and architecturally simple way to inject population-level context into unsupervised anomaly detection, and the precision improvement is clinically relevant because false positives are a known bottleneck. The paper is also careful in several respects: it reports bootstrap confidence intervals, statistical tests, a sensitivity analysis, and a downstream classification check, and it includes qualitative reconstructions. However, the evaluation currently leaves two load-bearing issues unresolved: the test-time protocol for a module that requires a batch is unspecified, and the anomaly score is never defined. Because the headline claims rest on these points, the significance cannot be assessed as stated.

major comments (5)

[Section 3.3 and Section 3.2] The test-time batching protocol is unspecified, and the bootstrap design in Section 3.3 appears to construct mixed-class batches. The hypergraph in Section 3.2 is defined over a mini-batch of size B, and the augmented code z_g depends on the other images in that batch. The evaluation 'draws 150 samples stratified by class (healthy versus pathological)', so at inference the hypergraph is built over a batch containing both classes. This makes the anomaly score transductive: a normal image scored with many pathologies in the batch receives relational features contaminated by pathological latent codes, while a pathological image scored with many normals is pulled toward the normal manifold. The baseline AE encodes each image independently, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples. The paper must state the inference-time batching rule, the test-batch composition, and how single-image deploym
[Section 3.3 (Evaluation metrics)] The manuscript never defines the anomaly score used for the AUC, AP, KS, and Youden-J analyses. The model produces reconstructions; a pixel-level error map could be aggregated by mean, max, or sum, and the choice materially affects AUC/AP on 2D slices. This is a reproducibility-critical omission. Please provide the exact scalar anomaly-score formula, including how it is computed for images processed within a batch and whether the score is normalized.
[Section 4.3 and Table 3] The key hyperparameter k is selected on the test data. The paper compares k=0, k=0.35B, and k=0.70B, then designates k=0.70B as 'the proposed solution' based on its superior test-set AUC/AP. With no validation set or nested selection, the reported 0.90 AUC and 0.78 AP are optimistic estimates of performance for a selected configuration. The loss weights (lambda_1=1000, lambda_2=1) are also tuned, and Section 5 acknowledges that k is not theoretically grounded. A validation-based selection procedure is needed before the headline numbers can be taken as unbiased.
[Table 2 and Section 4.4] The text states that four of six clustering metrics improve monotonically with k and that for the other two 'large-k still achieves the best performance'. This is contradicted by the homogeneity score: 0.15±0.09 for baseline, 0.09±0.06 for small-k, and 0.13±0.07 for large-k. Homogeneity is worse under large-k than under the baseline AE, and it does not improve monotonically. This undermines the claim that larger k yields 'better isolation of pathological samples' in the latent space. Please correct the factual summary or restrict the clustering claim to the metrics that actually support it.
[Section 3.1 and dataset split] No patient-level or subject-level split is described. The dataset consists of 7,023 2D MRI images from multiple sources; if slices from the same patient appear in both the normal training set and the held-out evaluation set, the reconstruction baseline and the relational module could both benefit from memorization. The paper should state whether the train/evaluation split is performed at the image level or patient level, and report the number of distinct subjects if patient-level separation is used.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The loss in Eq. (1) is described as combining MSE and SSIM, but the symbols LMSE and (1−SSIM) are not explicitly defined. Please state the image domain and any masking or channel handling.
[Section 3.2] The model is described as using a 'ResNet101 backbone' within an autoencoder. Clarify how the ResNet is adapted for a reconstruction task and whether the encoder is initialized with pretrained weights.
[Table 1] The comparison table mixes settings with different dataset splits, image resolutions, and slice-level versus volume-level evaluation. Please add a column or footnote describing the evaluation protocol of each cited method so that the comparison is not misleading.
[Figure 3] The sub-captions label the central and right panels as 'AE+Small-k' and 'AE+Large-k', but the annotation text inside the panels appears to repeat 'K-S 0.70, p=0.000' for the central panel. Please check the intra-panel annotations for consistency with the values reported in Section 4.1.
[Section 4.1] The sentence 'the distance between the healthy and pathological distributions is greater when the AE is augmented' is supported only by KS statistics of 0.70 versus 0.76; the KS test is sensitive to distribution shift, but the paper does not report the direction or effect size. This is a minor presentation issue if the AUC/AP results remain the primary evidence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central AUC/AP claim is not circular; one supporting evaluation step (Youden threshold) is in-sample.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Evaluation) and Table 3]
"We use a simple linear classifier (with 5-fold cross validation) on the latent representations ze and zg, and employ Youden’s J= max_t (TPR(t) + TNR(t) −1) statistic as a decision threshold on the anomaly scores ... Table 3: ROC, PR, and downstream accuracy performance @ thresholded anomaly score"

The decision threshold is selected by maximizing TPR(t)+TNR(t)-1 on the same labeled evaluation sample for which Table 3 then reports Accuracy, F1, Precision, and Recall. Thus those downstream classification metrics are in-sample optima, not independent predictions: the reported thresholded performance is by construction the best threshold for that same labeled set. This does not affect the headline AUC/AP results, which are rank-based and threshold-free, but it makes the thresholded downstream numbers partially circular.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical method study with no equation-level derivation chain and no reliance on the authors' own prior theorems or self-citations. The central claim—that the relational module improves AUC/AP—is not circular: the augmented code z_g is computed from the input latent code and hypergraph-aggregated neighbor codes, with no anomaly label used in its construction, and AUC/AP are threshold-free. The main validity concerns (test-time batching over mixed healthy/pathological samples; k being specified only in the sensitivity section rather than the methods) are methodological risks, not circular reductions: they concern whether the comparison is apples-to-apples and whether the reported configuration was pre-specified, not whether an output is defined from its target. The one concrete circular step is the Youden-J threshold, which is fitted to the same labeled test data used to report thresholded classification metrics; this is a supporting result, not the core AUC/AP headline. The paper's own Limitations paragraph also honestly states that k has no theoretical derivation. Score 3 reflects one partial in-sample prediction while the central empirical claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on selecting k and loss weights on evaluation data, on an unstated test-time batching procedure, and on treating MRI slices as independent samples.

free parameters (3)

kperc (neighborhood fraction) = 0.70 (large-k; B=16 -> k=12)
Controls k-nearest-neighbor context; the paper reports gains only for k=0.7B and uses it as the proposed configuration, selected based on evaluation-set performance.
Loss weights lambda_1, lambda_2 = 1000, 1
Chosen empirically on a small training subset to give high-fidelity reconstructions (Section 3.2); affects the training objective.
Batch size B = 16
Sets the context window and k; chosen partly by GPU memory limits; sensitivity to B is not explored.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Reconstruction error on healthy training data is a valid anomaly score for detecting brain tumors.
Central evaluation uses separation of anomaly scores, yet the anomaly score formula is never defined; the method assumes intensity-based reconstruction residuals carry pathological signal.
domain assumption Images in the dataset can be treated as independent samples (no patient-level leakage).
The dataset is 7,023 2D slices collated from sources; no patient-level splitting is described, so slices from the same patient may appear in both train and evaluation.
ad hoc to paper At inference, a batch of images is available to define relational context.
The module requires a mini-batch to build the hypergraph; the paper does not state test-time batching or how single-image deployment would work.
domain assumption k-nearest neighbors in latent space correspond to anatomically similar healthy samples.
No validation is provided that nearest neighbors are semantically similar; this is crucial for the population-aware aggregation to be meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-batch Relational Features Enhance Precision in An Unsupervised Medical Anomaly Detection Task." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKY5X5C4

@misc{pith2026260305534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-batch Relational Features Enhance Precision in An Unsupervised Medical Anomaly Detection Task},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKY5X5C4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.05534}
}

read the original abstract

Confounding pathology with normal anatomical variation remains a significant challenge in unsupervised medical-image anomaly detection, resulting in numerous false positives. To enhance integration of healthy variation, we augment the latent representation of a CNN autoencoder with contextual similarities within a normal cohort through batch-wise hypergraph estimation and a shared-weights graph convolution layer, producing a population-aware embedding. On a heterogeneous brain-tumor dataset of 2D MRI scans, the method improves separability between healthy and pathological samples, achieving an AUC-ROC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.95, 5.7% absolute gain), and a 16% absolute improvement in average precision (0.78 AP, 95% CI 0.66-0.89), thereby lowering false-positive rates. Moreover, both anomaly detection and downstream tumor versus no-tumor classification performance improve with the size of the mini-batch context captured in the augmented representation, suggesting a tunable lever for integrating healthy variation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.05534 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Proposed augmentation Loss function. During training, the module learns the weights Θh = {Θ0, Θ1} that capture relevant population-level features for the task. We retain the standard reconstruction loss for medical images, which combines mean squared error (MSE) and structural similarity index metric (SSIM) as shown in Equation (1), where x is an input image and xˆ is the output image reconstructed by the AE model. … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** shows sample input images alongside their reconstructions. We visualize reconstruction errors as overlays of the pixel-wise residual map (squared error, (x − xˆ) 2 ) in red. Furthermore, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Distribution of anomaly scores 4.2 Precision performance We additionally evaluate the discriminative capacity of the model configurations using both AUC-ROC and average precision (AP). As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Anomaly detection (a and b) and downstream classification (c and d) performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Latent code space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Reconstruction of anomalous regions The primary contribution of the proposed approach is a marked improvement in precision (reduction in false positive rates). While overall discriminability (as measured by AUC) improved by 5.7% absolute change, AP increased by 16.0% (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Autoencoders for unsupervised anomaly segmentation in brain MR images: A comparative study.Medical Image Analysis, 69: 101952, April 2021

Christoph Baur, Stefan Denner, Benedikt Wiestler, Nassir Navab, and Shadi Albarqouni. Autoencoders for unsupervised anomaly segmentation in brain MR images: A comparative study.Medical Image Analysis, 69: 101952, April 2021. ISSN 13618415. doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101952. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S1361841520303169

arXiv 2021
[2]

Tschuchnig and Michael Gadermayr

Maximilian E. Tschuchnig and Michael Gadermayr. Anomaly Detection in Medical Imaging - A Mini Review. In Peter Haber, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer, Helmut Leopold, and Manfred Mayr, editors,Data Science – Analytics and Applications, pages 33–38, Wiesbaden, 2022. Springer Fachmedien. ISBN 9783658362959. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36295-9_5

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36295-9_5 2022
[3]

Anomaly detection in brain MRI: a comprehensive review.Biomedical Engineering Letters, January 2026

Jihun Kim and Youmin Shin. Anomaly detection in brain MRI: a comprehensive review.Biomedical Engineering Letters, January 2026. ISSN 2093-9868, 2093-985X. doi:10.1007/s13534-026-00551-6. URL https://link.springer. com/10.1007/s13534-026-00551-6

doi:10.1007/s13534-026-00551-6 2026
[4]

Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in 3D Brain FDG PET: A Benchmark of 17 V AE-Based Approaches

Ravi Hassanaly, Camille Brianceau, Olivier Colliot, and Ninon Burgos. Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in 3D Brain FDG PET: A Benchmark of 17 V AE-Based Approaches. In Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Ilkay Oksuz, Sandy Engelhardt, Dajiang Zhu, and Yixuan Yuan, editors,Deep Generative Models, pages 110–120, Cham, 2024. Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 9783031537677. ...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53767-7_11 2024
[5]

Anomaly Detection for Medical Images Using Heterogeneous Auto-Encoder.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33:2770–2782, 2024

Shuai Lu, Weihang Zhang, He Zhao, Hanruo Liu, Ningli Wang, and Huiqi Li. Anomaly Detection for Medical Images Using Heterogeneous Auto-Encoder.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33:2770–2782, 2024. ISSN 1057-7149, 1941-0042. doi:10.1109/TIP.2024.3381435. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10486200/

arXiv 2024
[6]

Walter H. L. Pinaya, Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Robert Gray, Geraint Rees, Parashkev Nachev, Sebastien Ourselin, and M. Jorge Cardoso. Unsupervised brain imaging 3D anomaly detection and segmentation with transformers. Medical Image Analysis, 79:102475, July 2022. ISSN 1361-8415. doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102475. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl...

arXiv 2022
[7]

Memory-Augmented Dual-Decoder Networks for Multi-Class Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, April 2025

Jingyu Xing, Chenwei Tang, Tao Wang, Rong Xiao, Wei Ju, Ji-Zhe Zhou, Liangli Zhen, and Jiancheng Lv. Memory-Augmented Dual-Decoder Networks for Multi-Class Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, April 2025. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14884. arXiv:2504.14884

arXiv 2025
[8]

Memorizing Normality to Detect Anomaly: Memory-Augmented Deep Autoencoder for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection

Dong Gong, Lingqiao Liu, Vuong Le, Budhaditya Saha, Moussa Reda Mansour, Svetha Venkatesh, and Anton Van Den Hengel. Memorizing Normality to Detect Anomaly: Memory-Augmented Deep Autoencoder for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection. In2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1705–1714, Seoul, Korea (South), October 2019. IEEE. ISB...

arXiv 2019

Show all 18 references

[9]

Proxy-bridged Image Reconstruction Network for Anomaly Detection in Medical Images, October 2021

Kang Zhou, Jing Li, Weixin Luo, Zhengxin Li, Jianlong Yang, Huazhu Fu, Jun Cheng, Jiang Liu, and Shenghua Gao. Proxy-bridged Image Reconstruction Network for Anomaly Detection in Medical Images, October 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01761. arXiv:2110.01761

2021 arXiv
[10]

Sheng, David McAlpine, Paul Sowman, Alexis Giral, and Philip S

Xuexiong Luo, Jia Wu, Jian Yang, Shan Xue, Amin Beheshti, Quan Z. Sheng, David McAlpine, Paul Sowman, Alexis Giral, and Philip S. Yu. Graph neural networks for brain graph learning: A survey. In Kate Larson, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conferenc...
[11]

Customized Relationship Graph Neural Network for Brain Disorder Identification

Zhengwang Xia, Huan Wang, Tao Zhou, Zhuqing Jiao, and Jianfeng Lu. Customized Relationship Graph Neural Network for Brain Disorder Identification. In Marius George Linguraru, Qi Dou, Aasa Feragen, Stamatia Giannarou, Ben Glocker, Karim Lekadir, and Julia A. Schnabel, editors,M...

2024 doi
[12]

Inter-intra High-Order Brain Network for ASD Diagnosis via Functional MRIs

Xiangmin Han, Rundong Xue, Shaoyi Du, and Yue Gao. Inter-intra High-Order Brain Network for ASD Diagnosis via Functional MRIs. In Marius George Linguraru, Qi Dou, Aasa Feragen, Stamatia Giannarou, Ben Glocker, Karim Lekadir, and Julia A. Schnabel, editors,Medical Image Computi...

2024 doi
[13]

URL https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/masoudnickparvar/brain-tumor-mri-dataset

Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. URL https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/masoudnickparvar/brain-tumor-mri-dataset. 9 In-batch Relational Features Enhance Precision in An Unsupervised Medical Anomaly Detection Task
[14]

Deep Autoencoding Models for Unsupervised Anomaly Segmentation in Brain MR Images

Christoph Baur, Benedikt Wiestler, Shadi Albarqouni, and Nassir Navab. Deep Autoencoding Models for Unsupervised Anomaly Segmentation in Brain MR Images. In Alessandro Crimi, Spyridon Bakas, Hugo Kuijf, Farahani Keyvan, Mauricio Reyes, and Theo Van Walsum, editors,Brainlesion:...

2019 doi
[15]

Waldstein, Georg Langs, and Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth

Thomas Schlegl, Philipp Seeböck, Sebastian M. Waldstein, Georg Langs, and Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth. f-AnoGAN: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks.Medical Image Analysis, 54:30–44, May 2019. ISSN 13618415. doi:10.1016/j.media.2019.01.010. URL ...

2019 doi
[16]

MP-DRA: Multi-scale memory and adaptive pseudo-anomaly enhanced open-set anomaly detection.Neurocomputing, 655:131427, November 2025

Yunxue Shao, Fangdi Xu, and Lingfeng Wang. MP-DRA: Multi-scale memory and adaptive pseudo-anomaly enhanced open-set anomaly detection.Neurocomputing, 655:131427, November 2025. ISSN 0925-2312. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131427. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

2025
[17]

Tri-V AE: Triplet Variational Autoencoder for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Brain Tumor MRI

Hansen Wijanarko, Evelyne Calista, Li-Fen Chen, and Yong-Sheng Chen. Tri-V AE: Triplet Variational Autoencoder for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Brain Tumor MRI. In2024 IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 3930–3939, Jun...

2024
[8178]

doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/903

International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 8 2024. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/903. URL https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2024/903. Survey Track

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Autoencoders for unsupervised anomaly segmentation in brain MR images: A comparative study.Medical Image Analysis, 69: 101952, April 2021

Christoph Baur, Stefan Denner, Benedikt Wiestler, Nassir Navab, and Shadi Albarqouni. Autoencoders for unsupervised anomaly segmentation in brain MR images: A comparative study.Medical Image Analysis, 69: 101952, April 2021. ISSN 13618415. doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101952. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S1361841520303169

arXiv 2021

[2] [2]

Tschuchnig and Michael Gadermayr

Maximilian E. Tschuchnig and Michael Gadermayr. Anomaly Detection in Medical Imaging - A Mini Review. In Peter Haber, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer, Helmut Leopold, and Manfred Mayr, editors,Data Science – Analytics and Applications, pages 33–38, Wiesbaden, 2022. Springer Fachmedien. ISBN 9783658362959. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36295-9_5

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36295-9_5 2022

[3] [3]

Anomaly detection in brain MRI: a comprehensive review.Biomedical Engineering Letters, January 2026

Jihun Kim and Youmin Shin. Anomaly detection in brain MRI: a comprehensive review.Biomedical Engineering Letters, January 2026. ISSN 2093-9868, 2093-985X. doi:10.1007/s13534-026-00551-6. URL https://link.springer. com/10.1007/s13534-026-00551-6

doi:10.1007/s13534-026-00551-6 2026

[4] [4]

Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in 3D Brain FDG PET: A Benchmark of 17 V AE-Based Approaches

Ravi Hassanaly, Camille Brianceau, Olivier Colliot, and Ninon Burgos. Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in 3D Brain FDG PET: A Benchmark of 17 V AE-Based Approaches. In Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Ilkay Oksuz, Sandy Engelhardt, Dajiang Zhu, and Yixuan Yuan, editors,Deep Generative Models, pages 110–120, Cham, 2024. Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 9783031537677. ...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53767-7_11 2024

[5] [5]

Anomaly Detection for Medical Images Using Heterogeneous Auto-Encoder.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33:2770–2782, 2024

Shuai Lu, Weihang Zhang, He Zhao, Hanruo Liu, Ningli Wang, and Huiqi Li. Anomaly Detection for Medical Images Using Heterogeneous Auto-Encoder.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33:2770–2782, 2024. ISSN 1057-7149, 1941-0042. doi:10.1109/TIP.2024.3381435. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10486200/

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Walter H. L. Pinaya, Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Robert Gray, Geraint Rees, Parashkev Nachev, Sebastien Ourselin, and M. Jorge Cardoso. Unsupervised brain imaging 3D anomaly detection and segmentation with transformers. Medical Image Analysis, 79:102475, July 2022. ISSN 1361-8415. doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102475. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl...

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Memory-Augmented Dual-Decoder Networks for Multi-Class Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, April 2025

Jingyu Xing, Chenwei Tang, Tao Wang, Rong Xiao, Wei Ju, Ji-Zhe Zhou, Liangli Zhen, and Jiancheng Lv. Memory-Augmented Dual-Decoder Networks for Multi-Class Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, April 2025. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14884. arXiv:2504.14884

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Memorizing Normality to Detect Anomaly: Memory-Augmented Deep Autoencoder for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection

Dong Gong, Lingqiao Liu, Vuong Le, Budhaditya Saha, Moussa Reda Mansour, Svetha Venkatesh, and Anton Van Den Hengel. Memorizing Normality to Detect Anomaly: Memory-Augmented Deep Autoencoder for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection. In2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1705–1714, Seoul, Korea (South), October 2019. IEEE. ISB...

arXiv 2019