Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41155105›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Generative Modeling for Interpretable Anomaly Detection in Medical Imaging: Applications in Failure Detection and Data Curation.

McKell E Woodland, Mais Altaie, Caleb S O'Connor, Austin H Castelo, Olubunmi C Lebimoyo, Aashish C Gupta, Joshua P Yung, Paul E Kinahan, Clifton D Fuller, Eugene J Koay and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  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

13 authors.

McKell E WoodlandDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0995-3695
Mais AltaieDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Caleb S O'ConnorDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-2871-6692
Austin H CasteloDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-3015-3570
Olubunmi C LebimoyoDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Aashish C GuptaDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Joshua P YungDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3752-5997
Paul E KinahanDepartments of Radiology and Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Clifton D FullerDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5264-3994
Eugene J KoayDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7675-3461
Bruno C OdisioDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1771-8233
Ankit B PatelDepartments of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA.
Kristy K BrockDepartments of GI Radiation Oncology, Imaging Physics, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9364-5040

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
MEDICAL IMAGING AND DATA RESOURCE CENTER (MIDRC) YEAR 375N92020D00021 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI GIGER, MARYELLEN · 2021 to 2025
$16.6M
Optimization and Evaluation of Anatomical Models of Liver Radiation ResponseR01CA221971 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BROCK, KRISTY · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
Anatomical Modeling to Improve the Precision of Image Guided Liver AblationR01CA235564 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BROCK, KRISTY, ODISIO, BRUNO C · 2019 to 2023
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA221971NCI NIH HHS R01 CA235564NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020D00021NIH HHS 4P30CA016672-48NIH HHS 5R01CA221971-05NIH HHS 5R01CA235564-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work aims to leverage generative modeling-based anomaly detection to enhance interpretability in AI failure detection systems and to aid data curation for large repositories. For failure detection interpretability, this retrospective study utilized 3339 CT scans (525 patients), divided patient-wise into training, baseline test, and anomaly (having failure-causing attributes-e.g., needles, ascites) test datasets. For data curation, 112,120 ChestX-ray14 radiographs were used for training and 2036 radiographs from the Medical Imaging and Data Resource Center for testing, categorized as baseline or anomalous based on attribute alignment with ChestX-ray14. StyleGAN2 networks modeled the training distributions. Test images were reconstructed with backpropagation and scored using mean squared error (MSE) and Wasserstein distance (WD). Scores should be high for anomalous images, as StyleGAN2 cannot model unseen attributes. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) evaluated anomaly detection, i.e., baseline and anomaly dataset differentiation. The proportion of highest-scoring patches containing needles or ascites assessed anomaly localization. Permutation tests determined statistical significance. StyleGAN2 did not reconstruct anomalous attributes (e.g., needles, ascites), enabling the unsupervised detection of these attributes: mean (±standard deviation) AUROCs were 0.86 (±0.13) for failure detection and 0.82 (±0.11) for data curation. 81% (±13%) of the needles and ascites were localized. WD outperformed MSE on CT (

Indexed as

anomaly detectiondata curationfailure detectiongenerative adversarial networkgenerative modeling

Identifiers

PMID41155105
PMCPMC12561115

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.