ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Generative Modeling for Interpretable Anomaly Detection in Medical Imaging: Applications in Failure Detection and Data Curation.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Medical Imaging: A Survey of Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quality versus quantity of training datasets for artificial intelligence-based whole liver segmentation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.