Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39698721›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

Attacking medical images with minimal noise: exploiting vulnerabilities in medical deep-learning systems.

Wei Wang, Moritz Wildgruber, Yisong Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Wei WangCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3682-3185
Moritz WildgruberDepartment for Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, München, Germany.
Yisong WangCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2126-7006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A change in the output of deep neural networks (DNNs) via the perturbation of a few pixels of an image is referred to as an adversarial attack, and these perturbed images are known as adversarial samples. This study examined strategies for compromising the integrity of DNNs under stringent conditions, specifically by inducing the misclassification of medical images of disease with minimal pixel modifications. Methods: This study used the following three publicly available datasets: the chest radiograph of emphysema (cxr) dataset, the melanocytic lesion (derm) dataset, and the Kaggle diabetic retinopathy (dr) dataset. To attack the medical images, we proposed a method termed decrease group differential evolution (DGDE) for generating adversarial images. Under this method, a noise matrix of the same size as the input image is first used to attack the image sample several times until the initial adversarial perturbation s0 is obtained. Next, a subset s1 is randomly picked from the initial adversarial perturbation s0 that is still able to cause the samples to be misclassified by the classifier. A new subset s2 is subsequently randomly selected from the adversarial perturbation subset s1, which can still cause the adversarial samples to be misclassified by the classifier. Finally, the adversarial perturbation subset sn with the minimum number of elements is obtained by continuous reduction of the number of perturbed pixels. Results: In this study, the DGDE method was used to attack the images of the cxr dataset, the derm dataset, and the dr dataset; and the minimum number of pixels required to be considered a successful attack was 11, 7, and 7, respectively, while the maximum number of pixel changes was 55, 35, and 21, respectively. The average number of pixel changes was 30, 18, and 11, respectively, in the cxr dataset, the derm dataset, and the dr dataset, respectively, while the percentages of the average number of pixel changes among the total number of pixels of the image were 0.0598%, 0.0359%, and 0.0219, respectively. Conclusions: Unlike the traditional differential evolution (DE) method, the proposed DGDE method modifies fewer pixels to generate adversarial samples by introducing a variable population number and a novel crossover and selection strategy. However, the success rate of the initial attack on different image datasets varied greatly. In future studies, we intend to identify the reasons for this phenomenon and improve the success rate of the initial attack.

Indexed as

decrease group differential evolution (DGDE)Medical imagepixel attacksemi-black box attack

Identifiers

PMID39698721
PMCPMC11651935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.