Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37495660›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

A multimodal comparison of latent denoising diffusion probabilistic models and generative adversarial networks for medical image synthesis.

Gustav Müller-Franzes, Jan Moritz Niehues, Firas Khader, Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh, Christoph Haarburger, Christiane Kuhl, Tianci Wang, Tianyu Han, Teresa Nolte, Sven Nebelung and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Gustav Müller-FranzesDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Jan Moritz NiehuesDepartment of Medicine III, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Firas KhaderDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Soroosh Tayebi ArastehDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Christoph HaarburgerOcumeda GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Christiane KuhlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Tianci WangDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Tianyu HanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Teresa NolteDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Sven NebelungDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Jakob Nikolas Kather *Department of Medicine III, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Daniel Truhn *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany. dtruhn@ukaachen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although generative adversarial networks (GANs) can produce large datasets, their limited diversity and fidelity have been recently addressed by denoising diffusion probabilistic models, which have demonstrated superiority in natural image synthesis. In this study, we introduce Medfusion, a conditional latent DDPM designed for medical image generation, and evaluate its performance against GANs, which currently represent the state-of-the-art. Medfusion was trained and compared with StyleGAN-3 using fundoscopy images from the AIROGS dataset, radiographs from the CheXpert dataset, and histopathology images from the CRCDX dataset. Based on previous studies, Progressively Growing GAN (ProGAN) and Conditional GAN (cGAN) were used as additional baselines on the CheXpert and CRCDX datasets, respectively. Medfusion exceeded GANs in terms of diversity (recall), achieving better scores of 0.40 compared to 0.19 in the AIROGS dataset, 0.41 compared to 0.02 (cGAN) and 0.24 (StyleGAN-3) in the CRMDX dataset, and 0.32 compared to 0.17 (ProGAN) and 0.08 (StyleGAN-3) in the CheXpert dataset. Furthermore, Medfusion exhibited equal or higher fidelity (precision) across all three datasets. Our study shows that Medfusion constitutes a promising alternative to GAN-based models for generating high-quality medical images, leading to improved diversity and less artifacts in the generated images.

Indexed as

ArtifactsMental RecallDiffusionImage Processing, Computer-AssistedModels, StatisticalOphthalmoscopy

Identifiers

PMID37495660
PMCPMC10372018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.