Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

This paper claims that a diffusion-based quality-control framework, nnQC, can generate reliable pseudo-ground-truth masks and predict segmentation quality scores across seven organs and three imaging modalities, outperforming organ-specific

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:37 UTC pith:BYD7DPR2

load-bearing objection The ToE conditioning is a genuine new step for reconstruction-based QC, but the abstract overclaims on empty masks and cross-organ adaptation, and the CHAOS liver ablation contradicts the text. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.09588 v3 pith:BYD7DPR2 submitted 2025-11-12 eess.IV q-bio.QM

Diffusion-Based Quality Control of Medical Image Segmentations across Organs

Vincenzo Marcian\`o , Hava Chaptoukaev , Virginia Fernandez , M. Jorge Cardoso , S\'ebastien Ourselin , Michela Antonelli , Maria A. Zuluaga This is my paper
classification eess.IV q-bio.QM
keywords quality controlmedical image segmentationlatent diffusion modelpseudo-ground truthcross-organ generalizationTeam of Expertsfingerprint adaptationsegmentation hallucinations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that automated quality control of medical image segmentations can be made organ-agnostic. It introduces nnQC, which uses a latent diffusion model to reconstruct a plausible high-quality mask (a pseudo-ground truth) from a possibly bad input mask and the original image, then scores the input mask against that reconstruction. Across twelve public datasets covering seven organs and MRI, CT, and ultrasound, the predicted Dice and Hausdorff scores track the real scores with mean correlations of 0.89 and 0.94, beating the strongest organ-specific baseline's 0.77 and 0.78. If true, this means one adaptable framework, rather than a dedicated QC model per anatomy, could be dropped into large-scale segmentation pipelines.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that conditioning a latent diffusion process on two complementary 'opinions'—the relative axial position of the slice and semantic features extracted from the original image—lets the model sample a pseudo-ground-truth mask from the manifold of high-quality segmentations even when the input mask is severely degraded. The generated pseudo-ground truth is close enough to the real ground truth that any quality metric computed against it approximates the metric computed against the true ground truth. The paper supports this with higher Pearson correlations and lower mean absolute errors than three reconstruction-based baselines on synthetic degra

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Team of Experts (ToE) conditioning module. Two lightweight experts encode the slice-to-volume ratio (a number in [0,1] giving an axial slice's relative position within the volume) and features from a pretrained medical vision encoder applied to the original image; a cross-attention layer weights and merges these embeddings into a condition vector that guides the latent diffusion model as it denoises a corrupted mask back toward the healthy-mask manifold learned by a VAE-GAN. Dataset-specific fingerprint adaptation—preprocessing, normalization, orientation alignment, and network channel selection—is what lets the same machinery self-adapt to new organs and modalit

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that synthetically corrupted ground-truth masks—blank holes, erosions, false positives, class collapses, and class swaps—faithfully represent the real errors, including hallucinations and missing anatomy, that production segmentation models will produce; if real failures look different, the predicted quality scores could be biased even though the correlations on synthetic data are high.

What would settle it

Compute real Dice and HD95 scores for masks produced by several independently trained segmenters, including one known to hallucinate anatomy, and compare those real scores with nnQC's pseudo-scores on the same masks; also feed an all-background mask and a mask with a large false-positive region far from the organ. A large bias, a collapse to blank pseudo-ground truths, or a sharp drop in correlation on these real cases would falsify the central claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single nnQC model per organ can replace metric-specific or organ-specific QC pipelines: users supply the mask and the image, and any quality metric can be computed against the generated pseudo-ground truth.
  • Because QC is detached from the segmentation model, deploying nnQC alongside a new generalist segmenter removes the need to retrain QC whenever the segmentation algorithm changes.
  • The reported Kendall tau of 0.87 on cardiac datasets implies the pseudo-scores are reliable enough to rank competing segmentation algorithms without ground truth, with swaps occurring only when true performance differences are not statistically significant.
  • Out-of-distribution tests (train on one dataset, test on another for prostate and heart) suggest the framework transfers across sites and protocols without site-specific retuning.
  • The authors state the method currently works per organ and is best for well-bounded structures; multi-organ masks and highly irregular structures such as tumors remain open limitations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the synthetic corruption model is representative, nnQC's error on real segmentation failures should be similar to its benchmark MAE; a natural stress test is to run it on masks produced by models trained on data different from the ground-truth manifold and measure any bias.
  • The 'completely missing' claim is the easiest place to probe: an all-background mask is not part of the paper's corruption protocol, so testing on empty masks would clarify whether the diffusion prior alone can recover anatomy without any mask signal.
  • The per-organ training choice points toward a path for a truly universal QC: a topological interaction loss, which the authors propose, might let one model handle multi-organ scenes and would bring the framework closer to its 'self-adapting to any organ' promise.
  • Since the reported HD95 correlation is higher than the DSC correlation, the approach may be especially useful for catching boundary-level failures, but this asymmetry deserves a dedicated analysis before relying on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes nnQC, a diffusion-based quality-control framework for medical image segmentations. Core components are a VAE-GAN that learns a latent manifold of high-quality ground-truth masks; a Latent Diffusion Model (LDM) that denoises a degraded input mask to generate a pseudo-ground truth; and a "Team of Experts" (ToE) conditioning module that combines a positional embedding of the axial slice with a frozen UniMedCLIP image embedding via cross-attention. Dataset-specific fingerprints are used for preprocessing. The method is evaluated on 12 datasets covering 7 organs and 3 modalities, with synthetic degradations of ground-truth masks, and compared against Galati et al., Liu et al., and Wang et al. in terms of Pearson correlation and MAE for DSC and HD95. Additional experiments include same-organ cross-dataset transfer, model ranking, and ablations. The authors report consistently strong performance, average DSC r=0.89±0.03 and HD95 r=0.94±0.02, and claim superiority over baselines including cases of highly degraded or completely missing masks.

Significance. If the reported results hold, nnQC would be a useful, open-source, general-purpose QC tool that improves predicted-score correlation over existing reconstruction-based methods and exhibits same-organ cross-dataset transfer. The manuscript's strengths include publicly released code and weights, a broad multi-organ/multi-modality evaluation, comparison with three public baselines, and a model-ranking experiment with statistical checks. The pseudo-Dice/HD95 predictions are genuine held-out predictions, and the training/evaluation split is not circular. However, the significance of the contribution is currently constrained by three issues: the headline claims of robustness to completely missing masks and self-adaptation to any organ are not tested; the ablation table contradicts the narrative about the ToE module; and the benchmark relies entirely on synthetic corruptions that may not represent real segmentation failure modes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. IV-A.4] The abstract claims that nnQC works "including cases where segmentation masks are highly degraded or completely missing," and Sec. I/III claim self-adaptation "to any input organ dataset." Neither regime is in the evaluated test set. The corruption protocol in Sec. IV-A.4 degrades GT masks to DSC intervals [0.05,0.10), [0.10,0.25), ..., but an all-background (DSC=0) or empty mask is never generated; even the lowest interval still contains non-empty foreground. In addition, all models are trained per organ (Sec. IV-A.4), and the only out-of-distribution test in Table I transfers within the same organ (prostate→PROSTATEx, heart→M&M-2). No experiment trains on a set of organs and evaluates on a held-out organ. Please add (i) an empty-mask/degenerate-slice condition, (ii) a held-out-organ transfer experiment, and if the results do not support these regimes, revise the abstract and contributi
  2. [Sec. IV-B.4, Table III] The ablation narrative is contradicted by the reported numbers. For CHAOS Liver, the full ToE model gives DSC r=0.80 while positional-only conditioning gives DSC r=0.85. For CAMUS, positional-only yields DSC r=0.90 vs full model 0.89. The text states "Using positional encodings alone yields the highest DSC r" and then "the full model performs best, indicating that the information from both experts is complementary," which is not what the table shows for the primary correlation metric. The full model does improve HD95 r and DSC MAE on both datasets, so the result is not simply "worse," but the complementarity claim needs to be supported by a stated primary metric and ideally a statistical test. This is load-bearing for the ToE contribution.
  3. [Sec. IV-A.4 and IV-B.1] All benchmark correlations are computed on synthetic corruptions derived from the same GT distributions used for training, under a fixed corruption protocol (blank holes, erosion, random FPs, class collapsing, and class swapping). This protocol may not reproduce the failure modes of actual segmenters, such as hallucinations, misalignment, or missing anatomy. The claimed superiority of nnQC may therefore reflect fitting to the synthetic degradation distribution rather than to realistic error patterns. The model-ranking experiment (Sec. IV-B.3) uses real segmenters but reports only ranking agreement, not r/MAE between pseudo and real scores. To support the practical claim, please add an evaluation on masks produced by real segmentation models with quantitative score prediction, not only rankings, and/or on clinically observed failure cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] Typos/missing spaces: "no-new Quality Control" should be "no-new Quality Control," "proposeno-new" in the abstract, "bioedical" in reference [18], "reconstructucted" in Sec. IV-B.5, and "pipelines" in Sec. II-C. A copyedit pass is needed.
  2. [Sec. III-D] The notation for the input to the diffusion UNet is introduced as z_{0,S_d} in Section III-D, but in Section III-C the noise is called epsilon; please standardize the notation and clarify which variable is the latent to be denoised versus the auxiliary conditioning mask.
  3. [Sec. IV-A.4] The test set is described only as "9,370 2D slices"; please provide per-dataset slice/volume counts and the number of subjects used for testing, as this is important for reproducibility and for interpreting the confidence intervals.
  4. [Table III] Correlation values in the ablation study are reported without standard deviations or confidence intervals. Since the full model is sometimes worse on DSC r, the authors should report uncertainty intervals and clarify how many slices/subjects the correlations are computed over.
  5. [Sec. IV-B.3] The model-ranking experiment is described as covering "three cardiac datasets from three different image modalities" but MSD Heart, ACDC, and CAMUS may not all use distinct modalities; please clarify the modality labels (e.g., LGE-MRI, MRI, US).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: pGT-based QC scores are genuine held-out predictions; coverage gaps are external-validity issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a conditional generative QC pipeline: a VAE-GAN defines a latent manifold of GT masks (Sec. III-A), an LDM is trained to denoise synthetically corrupted masks under conditions from the ToE module (Secs. III-B/C), and at inference the decoded pGT is compared with the input S to yield pseudo-quality scores (Sec. III-D). The target real scores are computed against held-out GT masks, not against quantities used as training targets. Nothing in Eqs. 1-3 defines pGT as a function of the true score or of the test GT; the model is evaluated on a test split separated at the subject level, so the reported correlations are genuine predictions rather than fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The self-citations that exist ([13] Galati/Zuluaga; [22] Fernandez et al.) are not load-bearing: [13] is a baseline that the paper outperforms, and [22] supplies a published VAE-GAN/LDM architectural component rather than justifying the QC result. The conclusion candidly notes limitations with multi-organ segmentations and exclusion of tumors, which bound the claimed scope. The main weaknesses—synthetic in-distribution corruption, the absence of an explicit empty-mask case despite the abstract's 'completely missing' wording, and per-organ training rather than truly unseen-organ adaptation—are coverage/external-validity gaps, not circular reductions. No step of the claimed derivation is equivalent to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the manifold hypothesis, the synthetic-corruption proxy for real errors, and the adequacy of the chosen conditioning signals. No new physical entities or unobservables are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • VAE-GAN loss weights (λ_KLD, λ_perc, λ_adv, λ_Dice)
    Weights in Eq. 1 are not specified; the reconstruction quality of the GT manifold depends on them.
  • Latent space channels C = 2
    Manually chosen to balance expressiveness and spatial compression (Sec III-A).
  • DDIM inference steps = 20
    Empirically reduced from 50 to 20 (Sec III-D.2) to trade off speed and quality.
  • Synthetic corruption levels = DSC intervals: [0.05-0.10), [0.10-0.25), [0.25-0.50), [0.50-0.75), [0.75-0.95)
    Defines the training/test distribution of imperfect segmentations; central to the evaluation.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption High-quality segmentations share a learnable 2D manifold (Sec III-A)
    The VAE-GAN is trained only on GT masks; if GTs are heterogeneous (e.g., tumors), the manifold is ill-defined — the paper acknowledges exclusions.
  • domain assumption Synthetically corrupted masks (blank holes, erosion, random FPs, class collapse/swapping) represent real segmentation failures (Sec IV-A.4)
    The LDM is trained to denoise these synthetic corruptions; the validity of the proxy determines whether pseudo-Dice is predictive outside the benchmark.
  • domain assumption UniMedCLIP visual features and slice-to-volume ratio provide sufficient conditioning for anatomy (Sec III-C)
    No analysis is given for when image features are misleading (e.g., intensity/contrast variation across modalities).
  • standard math DDIM reconstruction of a corrupted latent conditioned on S and c yields pGT close to GT for in-distribution corruptions (Eq. 2)
    The diffusion objective is standard; the assumption is that the learned conditional distribution concentrates on the true GT.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14442 in / 11101 out tokens · 112499 ms · 2026-08-03T22:37:37.517514+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Medical image segmentation using deep learning (DL) has enabled the development of automated analysis pipelines for large-scale population studies. However, state-of-the-art DL methods are prone to hallucinations, which can result in anatomically implausible segmentations. With manual correction impractical at scale, automated quality control (QC) techniques have to address the challenge. While promising, existing QC methods are organ-specific, limiting their generalizability and usability beyond their original intended task. To overcome this limitation, we propose no-new Quality Control (nnQC), a robust QC framework based on a diffusion-generative paradigm that self-adapts to any input organ dataset. Central to nnQC is a novel Team of Experts (ToE) architecture, where two specialized experts independently encode 3D spatial awareness, represented by the relative spatial position of an axial slice, and anatomical information derived from visual features from the original image. A weighted conditional module dynamically combines the pair of independent embeddings, or opinions to condition the sampling mechanism within a diffusion process, enabling the generation of a spatially aware pseudo-ground truth for predicting QC scores. Within its framework, nnQC integrates fingerprint adaptation to ensure adaptability across organs, datasets, and imaging modalities. We evaluated nnQC on seven organs using twelve publicly available datasets. Our results demonstrate that nnQC consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across all experiments, including cases where segmentation masks are highly degraded or completely missing, confirming its versatility and effectiveness across different organs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.09588 by Hava Chaptoukaev, Maria A. Zuluaga, Michela Antonelli, M. Jorge Cardoso, S\'ebastien Ourselin, Vincenzo Marcian\`o, Virginia Fernandez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The nnQC framework. For a 3D image–segmentation pair, dataset-specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-stage training and inference workflow. At the first stage (top left), the VAE is trained adversarially (i.e., a VAE-GAN) to learn a rich latent space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pearson correlation (r) between the predicted pseudo-quality scores and real scores (DSC and HD95) across different organs, modalities, and datasets. HD95 is not estimated for Liu et al [16] as their model is designed to predict pseudo DSCs. D S C M AE MSD Spleen CHAOS Spleen MSD Liver CHAOS Liver CHAOS Kidneys KiTS MSD Pancreas MSD Prostate MSD Heart ACDC CAMUS MSD Hippocampus H D 9 5 M AE Organ [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean Absolute Error (MAE) distribution across different organs, modalities, and datasets. The MAE is measured as the difference between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Learned normative manifolds and generated pGTs from a low-quality input segmentation from the ACDC dataset. The first column shows the GT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Failed pGT sampling when multiple organ classes are present in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

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

45 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A review of deep learning in medical imaging: Imaging traits, technology trends, case studies with progress highlights, and future promises,

    S. Zhou, H. Greenspan, C. Davatzikos, J. S. Duncan, B. van Ginneken, A. Madabhushi, J. L. Prince, D. Rueckert, and R. M. Summers, “A review of deep learning in medical imaging: Imaging traits, technology trends, case studies with progress highlights, and future promises,”Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmen- tation and diagnosis: Is the problem solved?,

    O. Bernard, A. Lalande, C. Zotti, F. Cervenansky, and et al., “Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmen- tation and diagnosis: Is the problem solved?,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Automated quality control in image segmentation: application to the UK Biobank cardio- vascular magnetic resonance imaging study,

    R. Robinson, V . V . Valindria, W. Bai, and et al., “Automated quality control in image segmentation: application to the UK Biobank cardio- vascular magnetic resonance imaging study,”Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Robust machine learning segmentation for large-scale analysis of heterogeneous clinical brain mri datasets,

    B. Billot, C. Magdamo, Y . Cheng, S. E. Arnold, S. Das, and J. E. Iglesias, “Robust machine learning segmentation for large-scale analysis of heterogeneous clinical brain mri datasets,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Evaluating segmentation error without ground truth,

    T. Kohlberger, V . Singh, C. Alvino, C. Bahlmann, and L. Grady, “Evaluating segmentation error without ground truth,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Inter- vention, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Reverse classification accuracy: predicting segmentation performance in the absence of ground truth,

    V . V . Valindria, I. Lavdas, W. Bai, K. Kamnitsas, E. O. Aboagye, A. G. Rockall, D. Rueckert, and B. Glocker, “Reverse classification accuracy: predicting segmentation performance in the absence of ground truth,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    M3D-NCA: Robust 3D Segmen- tation with Built-In Quality Control,

    J. Kalkhof and A. Mukhopadhyay, “M3D-NCA: Robust 3D Segmen- tation with Built-In Quality Control,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    QCRe- sUNet: Joint subject-level and voxel-level prediction of segmentation quality,

    P. Qiu, S. Chakrabarty, P. Nguyen, S. S. Ghosh, and A. Sotiras, “QCRe- sUNet: Joint subject-level and voxel-level prediction of segmentation quality,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    A novel quality control algorithm for medical image segmentation based on fuzzy uncertainty,

    Q. Lin, X. Chen, C. Chen, and J. M. Garibaldi, “A novel quality control algorithm for medical image segmentation based on fuzzy uncertainty,” 10 IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 2532–2544, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Real-time prediction of segmentation quality,

    R. Robinson, O. Oktay, W. Bai, V . V . Valindria, M. M. Sanghvi, N. Aung, J. M. Paiva, F. Zemrak, K. Fung, E. Lukaschuk, A. M. Lee, V . Carapella, Y . J. Kim, B. Kainz, S. K. Piechnik, S. Neubauer, S. E. Petersen, C. Page, D. Rueckert, and B. Glocker, “Real-time prediction of segmentation quality,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervent...

    2018

  11. [11]

    Unsupervised quality control of image segmentation based on Bayesian learning,

    B. Audelan and H. Delingette, “Unsupervised quality control of image segmentation based on Bayesian learning,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 22, 2019

    2019

  12. [12]

    Medical image segmentation automatic quality control: A multi-dimensional approach,

    J. Fournel, A. Bartoli, D. Bendahan, M. Guye, M. Bernard, E. Rauseo, M. Y . Khanji, S. E. Petersen, A. Jacquier, and B. Ghattas, “Medical image segmentation automatic quality control: A multi-dimensional approach,”Medical Image Analysis, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Efficient model monitoring for quality control in cardiac image segmentation,

    F. Galati and M. A. Zuluaga, “Efficient model monitoring for quality control in cardiac image segmentation,” 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    SegQC: a segmentation network-based framework for multi-metric seg- mentation quality control and segmentation error detection in volumetric medical images,

    B. Specktor-Fadida, L. Ben-Sira, D. Ben-Bashat, and L. Joskowicz, “SegQC: a segmentation network-based framework for multi-metric seg- mentation quality control and segmentation error detection in volumetric medical images,”Medical Image Analysis, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Deep generative model-based quality control for cardiac MRI segmentation,

    S. Wang, G. Tarroni, C. Qin, Y . Mo, C. Dai, C. Chen, B. Glocker, Y . Guo, D. Rueckert, and W. Bai, “Deep generative model-based quality control for cardiac MRI segmentation,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 23, 2020

    2020

  16. [16]

    An alarm system for segmentation algorithm based on shape model,

    F. Liu, Y . Xia, D. Yang, A. L. Yuille, and D. Xu, “An alarm system for segmentation algorithm based on shape model,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019

    2019

  17. [17]

    Segment anything in medical images,

    J. Ma, Y . He, F. Li, L. Han, C. You, and B. Wang, “Segment anything in medical images,”Nature Communications, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    nnu-net: Self-adapting framework for deep learning-based bioedical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, P. F. Jaeger, S. A. Kohl, J. Petersen, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “nnu-net: Self-adapting framework for deep learning-based bioedical image segmentation,”Nature Methods, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models,

    W. H. Pinaya, P.-D. Tudosiu, J. Dafflon, P. F. Da Costa, V . Fernandez, P. Nachev, S. Ourselin, and M. J. Cardoso, “Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models,” inMICCAI workshop on deep generative models, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Realistic morphology-preserving generative modelling of the brain,

    P.-D. Tudosiu, W. H. Pinaya, P. Ferreira Da Costa, J. Dafflon, A. Patel, P. Borges, V . Fernandez, M. S. Graham, R. J. Gray, P. Nachev,et al., “Realistic morphology-preserving generative modelling of the brain,” Nature Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Mask, stitch, and re-sample: Enhancing robustness and generalizability in anomaly detection through automatic diffusion models,

    C. I. Bercea, M. Neumayr, D. Rueckert, and J. A. Schnabel, “Mask, stitch, and re-sample: Enhancing robustness and generalizability in anomaly detection through automatic diffusion models,” inICML 3rd Workshop on Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthcare (IMLH)

  22. [22]

    Generating multi-pathological and multi-modal images and labels for brain MRI,

    V . Fernandez, W. H. L. Pinaya, P. Borges, M. S. Graham, P.-D. Tudosiu, T. Vercauteren, and M. J. Cardoso, “Generating multi-pathological and multi-modal images and labels for brain MRI,”Medical Image Analysis, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Topodiffusionnet: A topology- aware diffusion model,

    S. Gupta, D. Samaras, and C. Chen, “Topodiffusionnet: A topology- aware diffusion model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16646, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Variational inference with normalizing flows,

    D. J. Rezende and S. Mohamed, “Variational inference with normalizing flows,”International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015

    2015

  25. [25]

    Generative adversarial nets,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial nets,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2014

    2014

  26. [26]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” 2021

    2021

  29. [29]

    Universeg: Universal medical image segmentation,

    V . I. Butoi, J. J. G. Ortiz, T. Ma, M. R. Sabuncu, J. Guttag, and A. V . Dalca, “Universeg: Universal medical image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Scribbleprompt: fast and flexible interactive segmentation for any biomedical image,

    H. E. Wong, M. Rakic, J. Guttag, and A. V . Dalca, “Scribbleprompt: fast and flexible interactive segmentation for any biomedical image,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    nnu-net revisited: A call for rigorous validation in 3d medical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, T. Wald, C. Ulrich, M. Baumgartner, S. Roy, K. Maier-Hein, and P. F. Jaeger, “nnu-net revisited: A call for rigorous validation in 3d medical image segmentation,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 488–498, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Low-dose CT image denoising using a generative adversarial network with Wasserstein distance and perceptual loss,

    Q. Yang, P. Yan, Y . Zhang, H. Yu, Y . Shi, X. Mou, M. K. Kalra, Y . Zhang, L. Sun, and G. Wang, “Low-dose CT image denoising using a generative adversarial network with Wasserstein distance and perceptual loss,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2018

    2018

  33. [33]

    Hierarchical patch vae-gan: Generating diverse videos from a single sample,

    S. Gur, S. Benaim, and L. Wolf, “Hierarchical patch vae-gan: Generating diverse videos from a single sample,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  34. [34]

    Unimed-clip: Towards a unified image-text pretraining paradigm for diverse medical imaging modalities,

    M. U. Khattak, S. Kunhimon, M. Naseer, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan, “Unimed-clip: Towards a unified image-text pretraining paradigm for diverse medical imaging modalities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10372, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Crossvit: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,

    C.-F. R. Chen, Q. Fan, and R. Panda, “Crossvit: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Attention beats concatenation for conditioning neural fields,

    D. Rebain, M. J. Matthews, K. M. Yi, G. Sharma, D. Lagun, and A. Tagliasacchi, “Attention beats concatenation for conditioning neural fields,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10684, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international con- ference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18, 2015

    2015

  38. [38]

    The medical segmentation decathlon,

    M. Antonelli, A. Reinke, S. Bakas, K. Farahani, A. Kopp-Schneider, B. A. Landman, G. Litjens, B. Menze, O. Ronneberger, R. M. Summers, et al., “The medical segmentation decathlon,”Nature communications, 2022

    2022

  39. [39]

    Heller, F

    N. Heller, F. Isensee, D. Trofimova, R. Tejpaul, N. Papanikolopoulos, and C. Weight, eds.,Kidney and Kidney Tumor Segmentation. 2022

    2022

  40. [40]

    CHAOS Challenge - combined (CT-MR) healthy abdominal organ segmentation,

    A. E. Kavur, N. S. Gezer, M. Barıs ¸, S. Aslan, P.-H. Conze, V . Groza, D. D. Pham, S. Chatterjee, P. Ernst, S. ¨Ozkan, B. Baydar, D. Lachinov, S. Han, J. Pauli, F. Isensee, M. Perkonigg, R. Sathish, R. Rajan, D. Sheet, G. Dovletov, O. Speck, A. N ¨urnberger, K. H. Maier-Hein, G. Bozda ˘gı Akar, G. ¨Unal, O. Dicle, and M. A. Selver, “CHAOS Challenge - com...

    2021

  41. [41]

    Prostatex challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images,

    S. G. Armato III, H. Huisman, K. Drukker, L. Hadjiiski, J. S. Kirby, N. Petrick, G. Redmond, M. L. Giger, K. Cha, A. Mamonov,et al., “Prostatex challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images,”Journal of Medical Imaging, 2018

    2018

  42. [42]

    Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images,

    A. Hatamizadeh, V . Nath, Y . Tang, D. Yang, H. R. Roth, and D. Xu, “Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images,” inInternational MICCAI brainlesion workshop, 2021

    2021

  43. [43]

    Advanced normalization tools (ants),

    B. B. Avants, N. Tustison, G. Song,et al., “Advanced normalization tools (ants),”Insight j, vol. 2, no. 365, pp. 1–35, 2009

    2009

  44. [44]

    Visualizing data using t-sne,

    L. v. d. Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne,”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 9, no. Nov, pp. 2579–2605, 2008

    2008

  45. [45]

    beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework,

    I. Higgins, L. Matthey, A. Pal, C. P. Burgess, X. Glorot, M. M. Botvinick, S. Mohamed, and A. Lerchner, “beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework,” inInterna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2016

    2016