Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 17 references

AA-ViT: Anatomically Aware Vision Transformer with Structural and Frequency Guidance for Contrast Enhanced Brain MRI Synthesis

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Synthetic Brain Scans Without Contrast Dye Edge Closer to Clinical Use

desk verdict Solid incremental architecture for contrast-enhanced MRI synthesis; main comparison table lacks significance testing and clinical evaluation is preliminary read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07553 v1 pith:UY55X6N6 submitted 2026-07-08 cs.CV

Talha Meraj , Tom Flannery , Charlie Cummins , Matt Townend , Thomas C Booth , Peter Crossley , Michael McCann , Ian Overton
show 1 more author
Saritha Unnikrishnan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords contrast-enhancedMRIsynthesisvisiontransformeranatomicaledgeawarenessfrequency-domainlossgadolinium-freeimagingbraintumorBraTS2021generativemedical
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 argues that explicitly forcing a neural network to care about anatomical edges and high-frequency detail — rather than letting it learn those features implicitly — produces more faithful synthetic contrast-enhanced brain MRI from pre-contrast scans. The authors build on an existing transformer-based generator (ResViT) and add two mechanisms: a Residual Dense Edge Block that extracts gradient-based edge maps using Sobel kernels and fuses them into the encoder's feature representations, and a multi-component training objective that penalizes errors in edge alignment, pixel-wise reconstruction, and frequency-domain fidelity via a high-pass Fourier mask. The combined effect is that the generator is steered toward preserving tumor boundaries and fine anatomical structures that prior methods blur or hallucinate. On the BraTS 2021 dataset (1,251 subjects), the resulting model, AA-ViT, achieves PSNR of 27.79 and SSIM of 0.930, outperforming four state-of-the-art methods spanning transformer, state-space, and diffusion architectures. A preliminary clinical evaluation by three neuroradiologists and one neurosurgeon across 19 glioma cases yielded a mean Likert score of 3.94 out of 5 across image quality, diagnostic utility, lesion visibility, clinical confidence, and added informational value. The authors position this as a step toward eliminating gadolinium-based contrast agents, which carry risks of brain deposition and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and are contraindicated in patients with renal impairment.

What carries the argument

Residual Dense Edge Block (RDEB): an encoder module that extracts anatomical edge maps via Sobel kernels and fuses them with densely connected convolutional features through a learnable projection, so that structural boundary information is explicitly carried into the generator's representations rather than left to be discovered implicitly.

What would settle it

If a focused lesion-level evaluation found that AA-ViT systematically hallucinated or missed contrast enhancement in clinically critical regions (e.g., active tumor margins) at rates that would change clinical decisions, the core claim of anatomically faithful synthesis would be undermined regardless of global PSNR/SSIM improvements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that explicit anatomical edge supervision and frequency-domain loss, when combined with a dense edge-aware encoder, yield measurably better synthesis of contrast-enhanced T1 MRI from pre-contrast T1, T2, and FLAIR inputs than architectures that rely on implicit feature learning. The Residual Dense Edge Block extracts structural edge information via Sobel convolution and injects it into the dense feature pathway, while the anatomically aware loss simultaneously penalizes pixel error, adversarial realism, edge misalignment, and high-frequency spectral deviation. An ablation study shows each component contributes statistically significant improvement (Wilcoxon signed-r,

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that higher pixel-similarity scores (PSNR, SSIM) and favorable clinician ratings on 19 cases are a meaningful proxy for clinical safety, when in fact the authors themselves note that current metrics do not assess whether the model misses or fabricates contrast enhancement in tumor regions — exactly the errors that would matter most in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the edge-and-frequency-guidance approach generalizes beyond BraTS 2021, it could become a standard ingredient in medical image synthesis pipelines where anatomical boundary fidelity is clinically critical — not just for brain MRI but for any contrast-enhanced modality.
  • The CKA analysis showing AA-ViT's final decoder layer reaching 0.948 representation similarity to real CEMRI (vs. 0.486 for ResViT) suggests that explicit edge priors shift learned representations closer to the ground-truth distribution at a deep architectural level, not just at the pixel output.
  • The preliminary clinician ratings (3.94/5) indicate that synthetic images are approaching but have not reached the threshold where clinicians would confidently use them as replacements for real contrast scans — the gap between 'useful adjunct' and 'safe substitute' remains the key clinical barrier.
  • The authors' own acknowledgment that current metrics do not assess missed or hallucinated enhancement points to a need for lesion-level evaluation protocols specific to synthetic contrast MRI, since global similarity metrics can mask clinically dangerous failures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Sobel-based edge extraction is a fixed, hand-crafted prior; a natural extension would be to learn task-specific edge detectors or to incorporate multi-scale structural priors (e.g., from anatomical segmentation networks) that could capture boundaries Sobel misses in low-contrast regions.
  • The frequency-domain loss uses a single radial high-pass threshold; adaptive or learned frequency masks that target clinically relevant frequency bands (e.g., those corresponding to lesion texture scales) could improve diagnostic fidelity further.
  • The 19-case clinical evaluation, while a step beyond pure metric comparison, is too small to detect rare but dangerous failure modes such as hallucinated enhancement in critical regions — a non-inferiority study with lesion-level ground truth would be needed before any clinical deployment claim.
  • The slice-wise 2D processing discards inter-slice volumetric context; extending RDEB and the frequency loss to 3D would likely improve consistency across slices, which is clinically important for volumetric tumor assessment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes AA-ViT, an anatomically aware vision transformer for synthesizing contrast-enhanced brain MRI (T1ce) from pre-contrast modalities (T1, T2, FLAIR). The method introduces a Residual Dense Edge Block (RDEB) in the encoder for edge-aware feature extraction and a multi-component loss combining L1, adversarial, error-map, edge (Sobel), and frequency-domain (FFT) terms. The method is evaluated on BraTS2021 against four baselines (ResViT, I2I-Mamba, TSF-Seq2Seq, MU-Diff) using PSNR and SSIM, with an ablation study using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, a CKA representation analysis, and a preliminary clinical evaluation by four clinicians on 19 cases.

Significance. The paper addresses a clinically relevant problem (gadolinium-free CEMRI synthesis) and includes a preliminary clinical reader study, which is uncommon in this literature. The ablation study is properly designed with statistical significance testing (Wilcoxon, p<0.001), and the CKA analysis provides representation-level evidence beyond pixel metrics. The architectural components (RDEB, edge/FFT losses) are clearly motivated and individually validated. However, the main comparison against baselines lacks the same statistical rigor applied in the ablation, which weakens the central outperformance claim.

major comments (3)
  1. Table 1 (main comparison): The central claim that AA-ViT outperforms SOTA methods rests on mean±SD values with no inter-method significance testing. The PSNR gap over ResViT is 0.87 dB (27.790±4.927 vs. 26.919±4.657) with standard deviations of ~4.7–4.9 dB. Given this ratio of effect size to variance, a paired statistical test on per-case results is essential to determine whether the improvement is meaningful or within noise. Notably, Table 2 (ablation) already employs Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, so the infrastructure exists. Without paired tests in Table 1, the core quantitative claim is unsupported. This is the most load-bearing issue in the paper.
  2. Section 2.2, Eq. (4)–(8): The loss function introduces seven free parameters (λ1–λ5, α, r_frac) described as 'empirically chosen.' No sensitivity analysis is provided for any of these. Since the edge influence scalar α and the high-frequency threshold r_frac directly govern the anatomical and frequency guidance that distinguish AA-ViT from the ResViT baseline, the absence of any sensitivity study makes it difficult to assess robustness. At minimum, a sensitivity analysis for α and r_frac should be included, as these are the most architecturally novel hyperparameters.
  3. Section 3.2 (Clinical Evaluation): The clinical evaluation on 19 cases with a mean Likert score of 3.94/5 is presented as 'preliminary clinical validation.' While the authors acknowledge limitations in the conclusion, the study design has specific gaps that should be addressed or more clearly bounded: (1) no power analysis or non-inferiority margin is defined; (2) there is no comparison against real contrast-enhanced images (i.e., readers were not asked to distinguish synthetic from real, nor rate real images for comparison); (3) it is unclear whether the evaluation was blinded to image origin. The claim of 'clinical validation' should be scaled back to 'preliminary clinical assessment' unless a blinded comparison with real images is included.
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract and Section 3.1: The abstract states 'three neuroradiologists and a neurosurgeon' while the clinical evaluation section also says 'three neuroradiologists and one neurosurgeon' — consistent, but the number of readers (n=4) and cases (n=19) should be stated in the abstract for proportionality.
  2. Table 1: PSNR is reported as 27.790 in the table but 27.71 in the text (Section 3.1, 'Quantitative Results'). Similarly SSIM is 0.930 in the table but 0.929 in the text. Please reconcile.
  3. Section 2.1, Eq. (3): The notation C_{1×1} is introduced without explicit definition as a 1×1 convolution; this should be clarified for consistency with C_l in Eq. (1).
  4. Section 2.2, Eq. (6): The notation 'C_l' is used for convolution with Sobel kernels, but C_l was previously defined in Eq. (1) as a 3×3 convolution in the dense block. Using the same symbol for different operations is confusing; consider distinct notation.
  5. Figure 2: The CKA values (0.948±0.102 for AA-ViT vs. 0.486±0.311 for ResViT) are mentioned in the text but the figure caption does not specify which layers correspond to which rows/columns. Adding axis labels or layer indices would improve interpretability.
  6. Section 3.1: The dataset preprocessing mentions 'axial slices were scored by intensity across non-zero voxels, retaining the top half (≤100 per subject).' This selection criterion could introduce bias toward high-intensity (enhancing) slices; a brief justification would help.
  7. Reference [3] and [13] both appear to be 2025 MICCAI papers; please verify these are published or update to the correct venue/status.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. The referee raises three major points: (1) the need for paired inter-method significance testing in Table 1, (2) the absence of a sensitivity analysis for the edge influence scalar α and the high-frequency threshold r_frac, and (3) concerns about the scope and design of the clinical evaluation, particularly the use of the phrase 'clinical validation.' We agree with all three points and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we will add Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to the main comparison table, include a sensitivity analysis for α and r_frac, and reframe the clinical evaluation as a 'preliminary clinical assessment' with clearer bounding of its limitations. We note one honest constraint: the clinical evaluation was conducted as a single-arm reader study (synthetic images only) and was not designed with blinding to image origin or a real-image comparator; we cannot retroactively add these design elements to the existing data, so we will instead clearly state these as limitations and scope the claims accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Table 1 (main comparison): The central claim that AA-ViT outperforms SOTA methods rests on mean±SD values with no inter-method significance testing. The PSNR gap over ResViT is 0.87 dB (27.790±4.927 vs. 26.919±4.657) with standard deviations of ~4.7–4.9 dB. Given this ratio of effect size to variance, a paired statistical test on per-case results is essential to determine whether the improvement is meaningful or within noise. Notably, Table 2 (ablation) already employs Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, so the infrastructure exists. Without paired tests in Table 1, the core quantitative claim is unsupported. This is the most load-bearing issue in the paper.

    Authors: The referee is correct. We already apply Wilcoxon signed-rank tests in the ablation table (Table 2), so the infrastructure and per-case results are available. We will add the same paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to Table 1 for all pairwise comparisons between AA-ViT and each baseline (ResViT, I2I-Mamba, TSF-Seq2Seq, MU-Diff) on both PSNR and SSIM. We will report p-values (or significance asterisks) directly in the table. If any pairwise comparison does not reach significance after correction for multiple comparisons, we will state this transparently rather than claiming outperformance on that metric. We agree that without these tests the central claim is not adequately supported, and we will temper the language in the abstract and results section accordingly if any comparison fails to reach significance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section 2.2, Eq. (4)–(8): The loss function introduces seven free parameters (λ1–λ5, α, r_frac) described as 'empirically chosen.' No sensitivity analysis is provided for any of these. Since the edge influence scalar α and the high-frequency threshold r_frac directly govern the anatomical and frequency guidance that distinguish AA-ViT from the ResViT baseline, the absence of any sensitivity study makes it difficult to assess robustness. At minimum, a sensitivity analysis for α and r_frac should be included, as these are the most architecturally novel hyperparameters.

    Authors: We agree. We will add a sensitivity analysis for α and r_frac, varying each across a reasonable range (e.g., α ∈ {0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0} and r_frac ∈ {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5}) and reporting PSNR and SSIM for each setting. This will be included as a new table or figure in the revised manuscript. We will also briefly note the rationale for the chosen default values based on this analysis. We concur that α and r_frac are the most architecturally novel hyperparameters and that demonstrating robustness (or documenting sensitivity) is important for the reader to assess the method's practical reliability. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Section 3.2 (Clinical Evaluation): The clinical evaluation on 19 cases with a mean Likert score of 3.94/5 is presented as 'preliminary clinical validation.' While the authors acknowledge limitations in the conclusion, the study design has specific gaps that should be addressed or more clearly bounded: (1) no power analysis or non-inferiority margin is defined; (2) there is no comparison against real contrast-enhanced images (i.e., readers were not asked to distinguish synthetic from real, nor rate real images for comparison); (3) it is unclear whether the evaluation was blinded to image origin. The claim of 'clinical validation' should be scaled back to 'preliminary clinical assessment' unless a blinded comparison with real images is included.

    Authors: We agree with the referee's assessment. We will make the following changes: (1) Replace all instances of 'clinical validation' with 'preliminary clinical assessment' throughout the manuscript, including the abstract, Section 3.2, and the conclusion. (2) Explicitly state in Section 3.2 that the evaluation was a single-arm reader study on synthetic images only, with no real-image comparator and no formal blinding to image origin. (3) Add a clear statement that no power analysis or non-inferiority margin was pre-specified. (4) Frame the 3.94/5 Likert score as exploratory evidence of perceived image quality and diagnostic utility, not as validation of clinical equivalence or non-inferiority to real contrast-enhanced MRI. We acknowledge that a properly powered, blinded, real-versus-synthetic comparison would be needed to support stronger claims, and we will list this as a priority for future work. We cannot retroactively add blinding or a real-image comparator to the existing study data, so we will bound the claims to what the study design supports. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the method is evaluated against external baselines on a public dataset, loss components are standard, and no prediction reduces to a fitted value by construction.

full rationale

The paper proposes AA-ViT, a vision transformer for contrast-enhanced MRI synthesis, and evaluates it on the public BraTS2021 dataset against four external baselines (ResViT, I2I-Mamba, TSF-Seq2Seq, MU-Diff). The loss components (L1, MAE, Sobel edge, FFT) are standard and defined in terms of ground-truth vs. generated images, not in terms of the target result. The CKA analysis uses the standard Kornblith et al. [10] method. The ablation study (Table 2) uses Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with p-values. No 'prediction' or 'first-principles result' reduces to its inputs by construction. The paper builds on ResViT [4] (an external citation to Dalmaz et al., 2022), but this is a legitimate architectural baseline, not a self-citation. The authors have no competing interests and the cited prior work is by different author groups. The absence of inter-method significance testing in Table 1 is a correctness/statistical-rigor concern (as flagged by the skeptic), not a circularity issue. The clinical evaluation on 19 cases is preliminary and the authors acknowledge its limitations, but this is not circular. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. The free parameters are all empirically tuned loss weights and thresholds whose values are not reported. The axioms are standard domain assumptions in the medical image synthesis literature, not ad hoc inventions.

free parameters (7)
  • λ1 (L1 loss weight) = not stated
    Empirically chosen; value not reported in the paper.
  • λ2 (adversarial loss weight) = not stated
    Empirically chosen; value not reported.
  • λ3 (error-map loss weight) = not stated
    Empirically chosen; value not reported.
  • λ4 (edge loss weight) = not stated
    Empirically chosen; value not reported.
  • λ5 (FFT loss weight) = not stated
    Empirically chosen; value not reported.
  • α (edge influence scalar) = not stated
    Introduced in Eq. 3 to adjust edge feature influence; value not reported.
  • r_frac (high-frequency threshold) = not stated
    Defines the radial high-pass mask in Eq. 8; value not reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Pre-contrast T1, T2, and FLAIR contain sufficient information to synthesize diagnostically useful T1ce images.
    This is the foundational premise of the entire CEMRI synthesis field. The paper does not test it independently; it assumes it and measures pixel similarity.
  • domain assumption PSNR and SSIM are adequate proxies for clinical utility of synthesized contrast-enhanced MRI.
    The paper uses these as primary quantitative metrics. The authors themselves partially retract this in the conclusion: 'the current evaluation relies on global image similarity metrics and does not explicitly assess clinically critical errors.'
  • domain assumption BraTS2021 is representative enough of clinical imaging variability to support the claimed improvements.
    Single dataset used. Authors acknowledge 'BraTS2021... does not fully capture the variability of real-world clinical imaging.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AA-ViT: Anatomically Aware Vision Transformer with Structural and Frequency Guidance for Contrast Enhanced Brain MRI Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UY55X6N6

@misc{pith2026260707553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AA-ViT: Anatomically Aware Vision Transformer with Structural and Frequency Guidance for Contrast Enhanced Brain MRI Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UY55X6N6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07553}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate tumour localization and diagnosis is a critical component of clinical care for brain cancers. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most commonly used imaging modality due to its superior soft-tissue contrast. However, standard MRI often exhibits limited contrast and imaging artifacts, which necessitates the use of contrast agents to enhance lesion visibility. The administration of chemical contrast agents is not always feasible and may be contraindicated in patients with renal impairment or other health conditions. As a result, developing accurate and non-invasive contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI) synthesis methods has clinical importance. In recent years, numerous approaches for CEMRI synthesis have been proposed, predominantly relying on generative artificial intelligence models. While these methods demonstrate promising performance, their dependence on implicit feature learning often limits their ability to preserve anatomical boundaries and tumour-specific fine structures. To address these challenges, we propose an anatomically aware frequency-and-structure-guided vision transformer (AA-ViT), for CEMRI synthesis using pre-contrast MRI modalities (T1, T2, and FLAIR). Experiments on the BraTS 2021 dataset demonstrate that the proposed method preserves anatomical and lesion boundaries, achieving higher PSNR and SSIM than state-of-the-art approaches. Clinical evaluation by three neuroradiologists and a neurosurgeon on 19 randomly selected cases across diverse gliomas yielded a mean score of 3.94/5, providing preliminary clinical validation rarely seen in prior studies. Synthetic post-contrast scans from our model could lower scanning costs, shorten imaging time, and avoid the potential risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07553 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. presents the overall architecture of the proposed AA-ViT framework. It follows a PatchGAN-based image-to-image translation paradigm, where the generator (G) learns to synthesize contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMRI) from pre￾contrast MRI inputs. The generator incorporates an encoder enhanced with a Residual Dense Edge Block (RDEB) to improve feature representation using gradient-based edge information. A patch-based discrim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Layer-wise CKA comparison between features extracted from synthesized and real CEMRI images for (a) ResViT and (b) AA-ViT (ours). Saliency comparison: (c) ResViT attends to irrelevant regions, whereas (d) AA-ViT focuses on anatomically important areas needing improvement. that RDEB enhances anatomical fidelity beyond visual inspection and pixel-wise metrics. 2.2 Anatomically Aware Loss with Structural and Frequency … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of cancerous and normal synthesized images with PSNR and SSIM of AA-ViT and baselines (row 1 and 3) and corresponding error maps (row 2 and 4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Clinician ratings (Q1–Q5) of generated images: realism, diagnostic utility, lesion clarity, confidence, and extra information beyond T1/T2/FLAIR. Boxes = IQR & median; whiskers = full range; points = outliers; black diamonds = mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14022 (2024) 10 T

    Atli, O.F., Kabas, B., Arslan, F., Demirtas, A.C., Yurt, M., Dalmaz, O., Cukur, T.: I2i-mamba: Multi-modal medical image synthesis via selective state space mod- eling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14022 (2024) 10 T. Meraj et al

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

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

    Baid, U., Ghodasara, S., Mohan, S., Bilello, M., Calabrese, E., et al.: The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmenta- tion and radiogenomic classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.02314

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.02314 2021

  3. [3]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Chang, H., Shang, Y., Wang, H., Liang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, F., Niu, C., Lian, C.: Controllable flow matching for 3d contrast-enhanced brain mri synthesis from non-contrast scans. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 119–128. Springer (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging41(10), 2598–2614 (2022)

    Dalmaz, O., Yurt, M., Çukur, T.: Resvit: Residual vision transformers for multi- modal medical image synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging41(10), 2598–2614 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    npj Artificial Intelligence1(1), 11 (2025)

    Dayarathna, S., Wu, Y., Cai, J., Wong, T.T., Law, M., Islam, K.T., Peiris, H., Chen, Z.: Mu-diff: a mutual learning diffusion model for synthetic mri with appli- cation for brain lesions. npj Artificial Intelligence1(1), 11 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering13, 156–168 (2019)

    Ghaffari, M., Sowmya, A., Oliver, R.: Automated brain tumor segmentation using multimodal brain scans: a survey based on models submitted to the brats 2012– 2018 challenges. IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering13, 156–168 (2019)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    The Lancet Neurology16(7), 564–570 (2017)

    Gulani, V., Calamante, F., Shellock, F.G., Kanal, E., Reeder, S.B.: Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. The Lancet Neurology16(7), 564–570 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Han, L., Zhang, T., Huang, Y., Dou, H., Wang, X., Gao, Y., Lu, C., Tan, T., Mann, R.: An explainable deep framework: towards task-specific fusion for multi- to-one mri synthesis. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 45–55. Springer (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 17 references
  1. [9]

    Investigative Radiology54(10), 653–660 (October 2019)

    Kleesiek, J., Morshuis, J.N., Isensee, F., Deike-Hofmann, K., Paech, D., Kickin- gereder, P., Köthe, U., Rother, C., Forsting, M., Wick, W., Bendszus, M., Schlem- mer, H.P., Radbruch, A.: Can virtual contrast enhancement in brain mri replace gadolinium?: A feasibility study. I...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., Lee, H., Hinton, G.: Similarity of neural network rep- resentations revisited. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 3519–

  3. [11]

    In: International Conference on Medical Im- age Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Li, H., Paetzold, J.C., Sekuboyina, A., Kofler, F., Zhang, J., Kirschke, J.S., Wiestler, B., Menze, B.: Diamondgan: unified multi-modal generative adversarial networks for mri sequences synthesis. In: International Conference on Medical Im- age Computing and Computer-Assisted ...

    2019

  4. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging42(12), 3524–3539 (2023)

    Özbey, M., Dalmaz, O., Dar, S.U., Bedel, H.A., Özturk, Ş., Güngör, A., Cukur, T.: Unsupervised medical image translation with adversarial diffusion models. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging42(12), 3524–3539 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    In: Interna- tional Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interven- tion

    Pang, H., Zhang, P., Hong, X., Chen, S., Ye, C.: D 3 m: Deformation-driven diffu- sion model for synthesis of contrast-enhanced mri with brain tumors. In: Interna- tional Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interven- tion. pp. 151–160. Springer (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Neurosurgery81(3), 397–415 (2017)

    Villanueva-Meyer, J.E., Mabray, M.C., Cha, S.: Current clinical brain tumor imag- ing. Neurosurgery81(3), 397–415 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Translational Cancer Research13(3), 1567 (2024)

    Yang,Y.,Wang,P.,Yang,Z.,Zeng,Y.,Chen,F.,Wang,Z.,Rizzo,S.:Segmentation methodofmagneticresonanceimagingbraintumorimagesbasedonimprovedunet network. Translational Cancer Research13(3), 1567 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Medical image analysis78, 102429 (2022) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11

    Yurt, M., Özbey, M., Dar, S.U., Tinaz, B., Oguz, K.K., Çukur, T.: Progressively volumetrized deep generative models for data-efficient contextual learning of mr image recovery. Medical image analysis78, 102429 (2022) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11

    2022

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00895 (2023)

    Zhang, T., Han, L., D’Angelo, A., Wang, X., Gao, Y., Lu, C., Teuwen, J., Beets- Tan, R., Tan, T., Mann, R.: Synthesis of contrast-enhanced breast mri using multi- b-value dwi-based hierarchical fusion network with attention mechanism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00895 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.