pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19191 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Improved Anomaly Detection in Medical Images via Mean Shift Density Enhancement

Pritam Kar , Gouri Lakshmi S , Saptarshi Bej
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI
keywords anomaly detectionmedical imagingmean shiftdensity estimationone-class learningMahalanobis distancelatent spacebrain tumor detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mean Shift Density Enhancement refines latent features from pretrained backbones to sharpen one-class anomaly scoring in medical images.

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

The paper presents a hybrid method that first embeds medical images into a latent space using any pretrained backbone, then applies an iterative shifting process called Mean Shift Density Enhancement to move normal samples toward denser regions. Anomaly detection then relies on how far a new sample deviates from a Gaussian model fitted in the reduced space via Mahalanobis distance. This one-class setup needs only normal examples during training. The approach reports leading results on seven datasets, with especially strong separation on brain tumor cases. Readers would care because it offers a practical way to flag rare conditions when abnormal training labels are unavailable.

Core claim

The authors claim that Mean Shift Density Enhancement, an iterative manifold-shifting procedure, moves normal samples toward higher-likelihood regions in the latent space of pretrained backbones. This produces a tighter normal distribution, so that Gaussian density estimation in PCA-reduced space and Mahalanobis distance yield more accurate anomaly scores. Experiments across seven medical imaging datasets show the framework reaching the highest AUC on four datasets and highest Average Precision on five, including 0.981 on brain tumor detection, all under a one-class learning paradigm that uses only normal samples.

What carries the argument

Mean Shift Density Enhancement (MSDE), an iterative manifold-shifting procedure that moves samples toward regions of higher likelihood before Gaussian density estimation.

Load-bearing premise

The iterative shifting performed by Mean Shift Density Enhancement reliably moves normal samples toward higher-likelihood regions in the latent space of arbitrary pretrained backbones.

What would settle it

A direct test would compare the final AUC and Average Precision with and without the MSDE step on the same backbone and datasets; if the scores do not improve or worsen, the central claim fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19191 by Gouri Lakshmi S, Pritam Kar, Saptarshi Bej.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed MSDE anomaly detection pipeline. (a) Medical images are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of UMAP embeddings for the RSNA (AnatPaste backbone) and C16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Anomaly detection in medical imaging is essential for identifying rare pathological conditions, particularly when annotated abnormal samples are limited. We propose a hybrid anomaly detection framework that integrates self-supervised representation learning with manifold-based density estimation, a combination that remains largely unexplored in this domain. Medical images are first embedded into a latent feature space using pretrained, potentially domain-specific, backbones. These representations are then refined via Mean Shift Density Enhancement (MSDE), an iterative manifold-shifting procedure that moves samples toward regions of higher likelihood. Anomaly scores are subsequently computed using Gaussian density estimation in a PCA-reduced latent space, where Mahalanobis distance measures deviation from the learned normal distribution. The framework follows a one-class learning paradigm and requires only normal samples for training. Extensive experiments on seven medical imaging datasets demonstrate state-of-the-art performance. MSDE achieves the highest AUC on four datasets and the highest Average Precision on five datasets, including near-perfect performance on brain tumor detection (0.981 AUC/AP). These results underscore the potential of the proposed framework as a scalable clinical decision-support tool for early disease detection, screening in low-label settings, and robust deployment across diverse imaging modalities.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid one-class anomaly detection framework for medical images: images are embedded using pretrained backbones, refined via an iterative Mean Shift Density Enhancement (MSDE) procedure that shifts samples toward higher-likelihood regions in latent space, and then scored via Gaussian density estimation (Mahalanobis distance) after PCA dimensionality reduction. Experiments across seven medical imaging datasets report state-of-the-art AUC on four datasets and Average Precision on five, including 0.981 AUC/AP on brain tumor detection.

Significance. If the MSDE step can be shown to reliably concentrate normal-sample density in the latent space of arbitrary backbones, the method would supply a lightweight, label-efficient enhancement to standard density-based anomaly scoring that could improve early detection and screening in low-label medical settings across modalities.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (MSDE procedure): the iterative mean-shift updates are performed directly on the high-dimensional latent representations (512–2048 dimensions from typical CNN backbones) prior to PCA. Kernel density estimation underlying mean shift is known to degrade sharply in such dimensions; no analysis, bandwidth selection justification, or before/after density visualizations are supplied to demonstrate that normal samples are consistently moved to higher-likelihood regions rather than spurious modes.
  2. [Results section] Results (Tables 1–3 and associated text): the SOTA claims rest on AUC/AP improvements, yet the manuscript provides neither ablation studies isolating the contribution of MSDE (e.g., with vs. without the shifting step) nor statistical significance tests or error bars on the reported gains. Without these, it is impossible to attribute performance lifts to the density-enhancement mechanism rather than backbone choice or PCA settings.
  3. [§4] §4 (Experimental setup): the comparison baselines omit several recent density-estimation and manifold-learning methods tailored to medical anomaly detection; this weakens the claim that MSDE constitutes a clear advance over existing pipelines.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'near-perfect performance' on brain tumor detection; a single consolidated table listing AUC and AP for all seven datasets and all methods would improve readability and allow direct verification of the 'highest on four/five datasets' claims.
  2. [§3.2] Notation for the kernel bandwidth and iteration count in the MSDE update rule is introduced without an explicit equation; adding a numbered equation would clarify the procedure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important aspects that will strengthen the manuscript's technical rigor and experimental validation. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (MSDE procedure): the iterative mean-shift updates are performed directly on the high-dimensional latent representations (512–2048 dimensions from typical CNN backbones) prior to PCA. Kernel density estimation underlying mean shift is known to degrade sharply in such dimensions; no analysis, bandwidth selection justification, or before/after density visualizations are supplied to demonstrate that normal samples are consistently moved to higher-likelihood regions rather than spurious modes.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's valid concern about the curse of dimensionality affecting kernel density estimation in mean shift. Although the procedure is applied in the original high-dimensional feature space, our empirical results across multiple backbones indicate that the iterative shifts consistently improve anomaly detection performance, suggesting that the embeddings capture sufficient structure for the density enhancement to be effective. To address this rigorously, we will add: (i) justification for bandwidth selection (via grid search on a held-out normal validation set), (ii) quantitative metrics showing increased average log-likelihood for normal samples post-MSDE, and (iii) 2D t-SNE visualizations of latent distributions before and after the procedure to illustrate movement toward higher-density regions. These will be included in a revised §3.2. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results (Tables 1–3 and associated text): the SOTA claims rest on AUC/AP improvements, yet the manuscript provides neither ablation studies isolating the contribution of MSDE (e.g., with vs. without the shifting step) nor statistical significance tests or error bars on the reported gains. Without these, it is impossible to attribute performance lifts to the density-enhancement mechanism rather than backbone choice or PCA settings.

    Authors: We agree that isolating the MSDE contribution and providing statistical support are essential. We will add comprehensive ablation studies in the revised results section, including direct comparisons of the full pipeline versus the version without the MSDE shifting step (while keeping the same backbone, PCA, and density estimator) across all seven datasets. We will also report mean and standard deviation over five random seeds for all metrics and include paired t-test p-values to assess statistical significance of the observed gains. These changes will allow clearer attribution of improvements to the proposed density enhancement. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (Experimental setup): the comparison baselines omit several recent density-estimation and manifold-learning methods tailored to medical anomaly detection; this weakens the claim that MSDE constitutes a clear advance over existing pipelines.

    Authors: We appreciate the suggestion to broaden the baseline set. In the revised experimental section, we will incorporate additional recent methods relevant to medical imaging anomaly detection, including normalizing flow-based approaches, reconstruction-error autoencoders, and other manifold-learning techniques (e.g., those using contrastive or diffusion-based representations). We will update Tables 1–3 and the associated discussion to include these comparisons, ensuring a more comprehensive positioning of MSDE relative to current state-of-the-art pipelines. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical pipeline with independent experimental validation

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical hybrid framework: images are embedded via pretrained backbones, refined by an iterative MSDE manifold-shifting procedure, then scored via PCA-reduced Gaussian/Mahalanobis density estimation. No equations, derivations, or parameter-fitting steps are presented that reduce reported AUC/AP metrics to inputs by construction. Performance is evaluated on seven external medical imaging datasets with no self-citation load-bearing premises or uniqueness theorems invoked. The central claims rest on experimental outcomes rather than any definitional or fitted-input reduction, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained non-circular result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; MSDE is introduced as a new procedure whose internal parameters (bandwidth, iteration count, PCA dimension) are not disclosed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 1131 out tokens · 39536 ms · 2026-05-10T02:46:07.745809+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

38 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2623--2631, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classification

    Ujjwal Baid, Suyash Ghodasara, Suyash Mohan, Michel Bilello, Evan Calabrese, Errol Colak, et al. The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Autoencoders for unsupervised anomaly segmentation in brain mr images: A comparative study

    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: 0 101952, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation

    Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural Computation, 15 0 (6): 0 1373--1396, 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching

    Jon Louis Bentley. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching. Communications of the ACM, 1975

    1975

  6. [6]

    Bercea, Michael Neumayr, Daniel Rueck- ert, and Julia A

    CI Bercea et al. Mask, stitch, and re-sample: Enhancing robustness and generalizability in anomaly detection through automatic diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19643, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings

    Paul Bergmann, Michael Fauser, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Steger. Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4183--4192, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Medianomaly: A comparative study of anomaly detection in medical images

    Yu Cai, Weiwen Zhang, Hao Chen, and Kwang-Ting Cheng. Medianomaly: A comparative study of anomaly detection in medical images. Medical Image Analysis, 102: 0 103500, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Medianomaly: Benchmark for medical image anomaly detection

    Yu Cai et al. Medianomaly: Benchmark for medical image anomaly detection. https://github.com/caiyu6666/MedIAnomaly, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Skin Lesion Analysis Toward Melanoma Detection 2018: A Challenge Hosted by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC)

    Noel Codella, Veronica Rotemberg, Philipp Tschandl, M Emre Celebi, Stephen Dusza, David Gutman, et al. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection 2018: A challenge hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic). arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03368, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    The mahalanobis distance

    Roy De Maesschalck, Delphine Jouan-Rimbaud, and D \'e sir \'e L Massart. The mahalanobis distance. Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 50 0 (1): 0 1--18, 2000

    2000

  12. [12]

    Padim: A patch distribution modeling framework for anomaly detection and localization

    Thomas Defard, Aleksandr Setkov, Angelique Loesch, and Romaric Audigier. Padim: A patch distribution modeling framework for anomaly detection and localization. In International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 475--489. Springer, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770--778, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Jolliffe

    Ian T. Jolliffe. Principal Component Analysis. Springer, 2016

    2016

  15. [15]

    Anomaly detection via mean shift density enhancement

    Pritam Kar, Rahul Bordoloi, Olaf Wolkenhauer, and Saptarshi Bej. Anomaly detection via mean shift density enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03293, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Antanas Kascenas, Nicolas Pugeault, and Alison Q. O'Neil. Denoising autoencoders for unsupervised anomaly detection in brain mri. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, volume 172 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 653--664. PMLR, 2022. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v172/kascenas22a.html

    2022

  17. [17]

    Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes

    Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly detection and localization

    Chun-Liang Li, Kihyuk Sohn, Jinsung Yoon, and Tomas Pfister. Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9664--9674, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    Attention based glaucoma detection: A large-scale database and cnn model

    Liu Li, Mai Xu, Xiaofei Wang, Lai Jiang, and Hanruo Liu. Attention based glaucoma detection: A large-scale database and cnn model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10571--10580, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    1399 h&e-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the camelyon dataset

    Geert Litjens, Peter Bandi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Oscar Geessink, Maschenka Balkenhol, et al. 1399 h&e-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the camelyon dataset. GigaScience, 7 0 (6): 0 giy065, 2018

    2018

  21. [21]

    Abnormality detection in chest X -ray images using uncertainty prediction autoencoders

    Yifan Mao, Fei-Fei Xue, Ruixuan Wang, Jianguo Zhang, Wei-Shi Zheng, and Hongmei Liu. Abnormality detection in chest X -ray images using uncertainty prediction autoencoders. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2020 , volume 12266 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 529--538. Springer, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, Nathaniel Saul, and Lukas Grossberger. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection. The Journal of Open Source Software, 3 0 (29): 0 861, 2018

    2018

  23. [23]

    On the pitfalls of using the residual error as anomaly score

    Felix Meissen, Benedikt Wiestler, Georgios Kaissis, and Daniel Rueckert. On the pitfalls of using the residual error as anomaly score. In International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, pages 914--928. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Vindr-cxr: An open dataset of chest x-rays with radiologist's annotations

    Ha Q Nguyen, Khanh Lam, Linh T Le, Hieu H Pham, Dat Q Tran, Dung B Nguyen, Dung D Le, et al. Vindr-cxr: An open dataset of chest x-rays with radiologist's annotations. Scientific Data, 9 0 (1): 0 429, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    Brain tumor mri dataset

    Masoud Nickparvar. Brain tumor mri dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/masoudnickparvar/brain-tumor-mri-dataset, 2021. Accessed: 2026-04-17

    2021

  26. [26]

    Relative nn-descent: A fast index construction for graph-based approximate nearest neighbor search

    Naoki Ono and Yusuke Matsui. Relative nn-descent: A fast index construction for graph-based approximate nearest neighbor search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20419, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Mean-shifted contrastive loss for anomaly detection

    Tal Reiss and Yedid Hoshen. Mean-shifted contrastive loss for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 2155--2162, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Panda: Adapting pretrained features for anomaly detection and segmentation

    Tal Reiss, Niv Cohen, Liron Bergman, and Yedid Hoshen. Panda: Adapting pretrained features for anomaly detection and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2806--2814, 2021

    2021

  29. [29]

    Self-supervised predictive convolutional attentive block for anomaly detection

    Nicolae-C a t a lin Ristea, Neelu Madan, Radu Tudor Ionescu, Kamal Nasrollahi, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Thomas B Moeslund, and Mubarak Shah. Self-supervised predictive convolutional attentive block for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13576--13586, 2022

    2022

  30. [30]

    Lukas et al. Ruff. Unifying deep one-class classification and anomaly detection. IEEE TPAMI, 2021

    2021

  31. [31]

    Anatomy-aware self-supervised learning for anomaly detection in chest radiographs

    Junya Sato, Yuki Suzuki, Toshihiro Wataya, Daiki Nishigaki, Koji Kita, Kazuki Yamagata, Noriyuki Tomiyama, and Shoji Kido. Anatomy-aware self-supervised learning for anomaly detection in chest radiographs. Iscience, 26 0 (11), 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery

    Thomas Schlegl, Philipp Seeb \"o ck, Sebastian M Waldstein, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth, and Georg Langs. Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery. In International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, pages 146--157. Springer, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    f-anogan: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks

    Thomas Schlegl, Philipp Seeb \"o ck, Sebastian M Waldstein, Georg Langs, and Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth. f-anogan: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks. Medical image analysis, 54: 0 30--44, 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    Nina Shvetsova, Bart Bakker, Irina Fedulova, Heinrich Schulz, and Dmitry V. Dylov. Anomaly detection in medical imaging with deep perceptual autoencoders. IEEE Access, 9: 0 118571--118583, 2021

    2021

  35. [35]

    Learning and evaluating representations for deep one-class classification, 2021

    Kihyuk Sohn, Chun-Liang Li, Jinsung Yoon, Minho Jin, and Tomas Pfister. Learning and evaluating representations for deep one-class classification, 2021. ICLR 2021, arXiv:2103.01194

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Rsna pneumonia detection challenge, 2018

    Anouk Stein, Carol Wu, Chris Carr, George Shih, Jamie Dulkowski, et al. Rsna pneumonia detection challenge, 2018

    2018

  37. [37]

    Constrained contrastive distribution learning for unsupervised anomaly detection and localisation in medical images

    Yu Tian, Guansong Pang, Fengbei Liu, Yuanhong Chen, Seon Ho Shin, Johan W Verjans, Rajvinder Singh, and Gustavo Carneiro. Constrained contrastive distribution learning for unsupervised anomaly detection and localisation in medical images. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2021, pages 128--140. Springer, 2021

    2021

  38. [38]

    Unsupervised anomaly localization using variational auto-encoders

    David Zimmerer, Fabian Isensee, Jens Petersen, Simon Kohl, and Klaus Maier-Hein. Unsupervised anomaly localization using variational auto-encoders. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2019, pages 289--297. Springer, 2019

    2019