ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Comparative evaluation of generative artificial intelligence models for synthetic knee radiograph augmentation in clinical research.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, the capability of state-of-the-art generative models to synthesize realistic knee radiographs was evaluated to address dataset scarcity in osteoarthritis (OA) research.
methodsThree generative frameworks—Style Generative Adversarial Network3 (StyleGAN3), a stable diffusion + Cycle-consistent Generative Adversarial Network (CycleGAN) pipeline, and Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Network (DCGAN)—were trained on 10,042 real knee X-rays. Image quality was assessed using Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) while visual fidelity was evaluated via a Visual Turing Test conducted by two orthopedic surgeons and a musculoskeletal radiologist. Joint Line Convergence Angle (JLCA) was compared between real and synthetic images for anatomical fidelity. Inter- and intra-observer reliability for JLCA was measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsStyleGAN3 achieved the best performance (FID 10.84), showing high visual and anatomical fidelity. Integrating Stable Diffusion with CycleGAN showed a moderate FID of 39.79, suggesting that adversarial enhancements improved the diffusion-based synthesis. DCGAN showed lower quality, achieving an FID of 74.15. Expert accuracy in distinguishing real from synthetic images ranged between 36% and 88%, confirming difficulty in visual differentiation. Furthermore, JLCA measurements showed no significant difference between real (4.19 ± 3.07°) and synthetic (3.36 ± 2.19°) images generated by DCGAN (p = 0.12). Similarly, Diffusion + CycleGAN (3.91 ± 2.59° vs. 3.72 ± 2.52°, p = 1.00) and StyleGAN3 (4.27 ± 3.01° vs. 3.60 ± 2.37°, p = 0.25) showed no statistically significant differences. These results indicate that all elevated generative models maintained high anatomical fidelity relative to real radiographs. Inter-observer agreement was strong, with ICC values ranging between 0.83 and 0.97. Intra-observer reliability was also excellent.
conclusionStyleGAN3 generated the most realistic knee radiographs. Diffusion-based pipelines showed promising results when enhanced with adversarial networks. These findings underscore the potential of generative AI to mitigate data limitations in orthopedic research.
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.