Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42490963›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026

Potential of Image2Image translation in reducing AI bias attributed to differences in CT reconstruction methods: proof-of-concept study on a paired dataset.

Feifei Li, Liliana Lourenco Caldeira, Astha Jaiswal, Nils Große Hokamp, Oya Beyan, Ekaterina Kutafina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Feifei LiInstitute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Liliana Lourenco CaldeiraInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Astha JaiswalInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nils Große HokampInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Oya BeyanInstitute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ekaterina KutafinaInstitute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The choice of image reconstruction approach, such as Iterative Model Reconstruction (IMR) and iDose Methods: We compared three harmonization strategies: CycleGAN, Denoising Diffusion Models, and a conventional Gaussian filter, using a paired CT dataset. Performance was evaluated using task-agnostic metrics, including Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM), Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Frechet Inception Distance (FID), and Sliced Wasserstein Distance (SWD). Crucially, we assessed clinical utility by measuring the downstream impact on multi-organ segmentation using Mean Relative Volume Error (RVE), focusing on consistency across reconstructed modes. Results: Our findings reveal a significant discrepancy between visual fidelity and clinical utility. While Diffusion and CycleGAN models achieve competitive feature-level similarity, they introduce catastrophic systematic biases in downstream segmentation, particularly in adipose tissues (Body Composition Analysis, BCA), where volume errors can reach Conclusions: The results suggest that in the context of efficient AI for radiology imaging, where efficiency encompasses not only computational cost but also reliability of clinical outputs, task-agnostic image quality metrics are insufficient proxies for downstream clinical performance. High-parameter generative models may introduce structural losses that remain invisible to such metrics yet critically affect clinical utility. The underperformance of generative approaches observed here is likely attributable to 3D slice inconsistencies during volumetric reconstruction and suboptimal model adaptation, rather than to an inherent limitation of I2I methods, which retain significant potential for mitigating reconstruction-related bias in radiology AI. Future work developing harmonization pipelines must therefore prioritize task-specific, clinically grounded validation as the primary benchmark-and carefully consider whether computationally simpler approaches, such as conventional filtering, may already provide comparably stable harmonization for specific use cases, before resorting to high-parameter generative solutions.

Indexed as

biasCT reconstructiongenerative AIImage2Image translationmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID42490963
PMCPMC13375877

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.