Ultrasound image simulation with generative adversarial network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is difficult to simulate realistic ultrasound images due to the complexity of acoustic artifacts that contribute to a real ultrasound image. We propose to evaluate the realism of ultrasound images simulated using a generative adversarial network. METHODS: To achieve our goal, kidney ultrasounds were collected, and relevant anatomy was segmented to create anatomical label-maps using 3D Slicer. Adversarial networks were trained to generate ultrasound images from these labelmaps. Finally, a two-part survey of 4 participants with sonography experience was conducted to assess the realism of the generated images. The first part of the survey consisted of 50 kidney ultrasound images; half of which were real while the other half were simulated. Participants were asked to label each of the 50 ultrasound images as either real or simulated. In the second part of the survey, the participants were presented with ten simulated images not included in the first part of the survey and asked to evaluate the realism of the images. RESULTS: The average number of correctly identified images was 28 of 50 (56%). On a scale of 1-5, where 5 is indistinguishable from real US, the generated images received an average score of 3.75 for realistic anatomy and 4.0 for realistic ultrasound effects. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the realism of kidney ultrasound images generated using adversarial networks. Generative adversarial networks appear to be a promising method of simulating realistic ultrasound images from crosssectional anatomical label-maps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".