ArticleScientific reports2024
Conditional generative learning for medical image imputation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image Imputation with conditional generative adversarial networks captures clinically relevant imaging features on computed tomography.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Synthetic data generation: a privacy-preserving approach to accelerate rare disease research.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Image Synthesis in Nuclear Medicine Imaging with Deep Learning: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A novel 8-connected Pixel Identity GAN with Neutrosophic (ECP-IGANN) for missing imputation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Clinical applications of generative artificial intelligence in radiology: image translation, synthesis, and text generation.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Image imputation refers to the task of generating a type of medical image given images of another type. This task becomes challenging when the difference between the available images, and the image to be imputed is large. In this manuscript, one such application is considered. It is derived from the dynamic contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) imaging of the kidneys: given an incomplete sequence of three CECT images, we are required to impute the missing image. This task is posed as one of probabilistic inference and a generative algorithm to generate samples of the imputed image, conditioned on the available images, is developed, trained, and tested. The output of this algorithm is the "best guess" of the imputed image, and a pixel-wise image of variance in the imputation. It is demonstrated that this best guess is more accurate than those generated by other, deterministic deep-learning based algorithms, including ones which utilize additional information and more complex loss terms. It is also shown that the pixel-wise variance image, which quantifies the confidence in the reconstruction, can be used to determine whether the result of the imputation meets a specified accuracy threshold and is therefore appropriate for a downstream task.
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.