ArticleInsights into imaging2023
Artificial CT images can enhance variation of case images in diagnostic radiology skills training.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the quality and educational applicability of AI-generated anterior segment images in ophthalmology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to investigate if artificial medical images can blend with original ones and whether they adhere to the variable anatomical constraints provided.
methodsArtificial images were generated with a generative model trained on publicly available standard and low-dose chest CT images (805 scans; 39,803 2D images), of which 17% contained evidence of pathological formations (lung nodules). The test set (90 scans; 5121 2D images) was used to assess if artificial images (512 × 512 primary and control image sets) blended in with original images, using both quantitative metrics and expert opinion. We further assessed if pathology characteristics in the artificial images can be manipulated.
resultsPrimary and control artificial images attained an average objective similarity of 0.78 ± 0.04 (ranging from 0 [entirely dissimilar] to 1[identical]) and 0.76 ± 0.06, respectively. Five radiologists with experience in chest and thoracic imaging provided a subjective measure of image quality; they rated artificial images as 3.13 ± 0.46 (range of 1 [unrealistic] to 4 [almost indistinguishable to the original image]), close to their rating of the original images (3.73 ± 0.31). Radiologists clearly distinguished images in the control sets (2.32 ± 0.48 and 1.07 ± 0.19). In almost a quarter of the scenarios, they were not able to distinguish primary artificial images from the original ones.
conclusionArtificial images can be generated in a way such that they blend in with original images and adhere to anatomical constraints, which can be manipulated to augment the variability of cases. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Artificial medical images can be used to enhance the availability and variety of medical training images by creating new but comparable images that can blend in with original images. KEY POINTS: • Artificial images, similar to original ones, can be created using generative networks. • Pathological features of artificial images can be adjusted through guiding the network. • Artificial images proved viable to augment the depth and broadening of diagnostic training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.