Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39878897›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025

Generative artificial intelligence enables the generation of bone scintigraphy images and improves generalization of deep learning models in data-constrained environments.

David Haberl, Jing Ning, Kilian Kluge, Katarina Kumpf, Josef Yu, Zewen Jiang, Claudia Constantino, Alice Monaci, Maria Starace, Alexander R Haug and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Theranostics.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2025
    Review
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

22 authors.

David HaberlDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Jing NingDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Kilian KlugeDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Katarina KumpfIT4Science, IT Services & Strategic Information Management, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Josef YuDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Zewen JiangDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Claudia ConstantinoNuclear Medicine-Radiopharmacology, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Alice MonaciDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Maria StaraceDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Alexander R HaugDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Raffaella CalabrettaDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Luca CamoniASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Francesco BertagnaASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Katharina MascherbauerDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Felix HoferDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Domenico AlbanoASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Roberto SciagraDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Francisco OliveiraNuclear Medicine-Radiopharmacology, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Durval CostaNuclear Medicine-Radiopharmacology, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Christian NitscheDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marcus HackerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Clemens P SpielvogelDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria. clemens.spielvogel@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-8324

Funding

Medical University of Vienna Open Access Funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdvancements of deep learning in medical imaging are often constrained by the limited availability of large, annotated datasets, resulting in underperforming models when deployed under real-world conditions. This study investigated a generative artificial intelligence (AI) approach to create synthetic medical images taking the example of bone scintigraphy scans, to increase the data diversity of small-scale datasets for more effective model training and improved generalization.

methodsWe trained a generative model on

resultsThe clinical value and high quality of the synthetic imaging data were confirmed by four readers, who were unable to distinguish synthetic scans from real scans (average accuracy: 0.48% [95% CI 0.46-0.51]), disagreeing in 239 (60%) of 400 cases (Fleiss' kappa: 0.18). Adding synthetic data to the training set improved model performance by a mean (± SD) of 33(± 10)% AUC (p < 0.0001) for detecting abnormal uptake indicative of bone metastases and by 5(± 4)% AUC (p < 0.0001) for detecting uptake indicative of cardiac amyloidosis across both internal and external testing cohorts, compared to models without synthetic training data. Patients with predicted abnormal uptake had adverse clinical outcomes (log-rank: p < 0.0001).

conclusionsGenerative AI enables the targeted generation of bone scintigraphy images representing different clinical conditions. Our findings point to the potential of synthetic data to overcome challenges in data sharing and in developing reliable and prognostic deep learning models in data-limited environments.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBone and BonesDeep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadionuclide ImagingAgedFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedArtificial intelligenceBone scintigraphyGenerativeMulticenterSynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID39878897
PMCPMC12119683

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.