GANs for Medical Image Synthesis: An Empirical Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have become increasingly powerful, generating mind-blowing photorealistic images that mimic the content of datasets they have been trained to replicate. One recurrent theme in medical imaging, is whether GANs can also be as effective at generating workable medical data, as they are for generating realistic RGB images. In this paper, we perform a multi-GAN and multi-application study, to gauge the benefits of GANs in medical imaging. We tested various GAN architectures, from basic DCGAN to more sophisticated style-based GANs, on three medical imaging modalities and organs, namely: cardiac cine-MRI, liver CT, and RGB retina images. GANs were trained on well-known and widely utilized datasets, from which their FID scores were computed, to measure the visual acuity of their generated images. We further tested their usefulness by measuring the segmentation accuracy of a U-Net trained on these generated images and the original data. The results reveal that GANs are far from being equal, as some are ill-suited for medical imaging applications, while others performed much better. The top-performing GANs are capable of generating realistic-looking medical images by FID standards, that can fool trained experts in a visual Turing test and comply to some metrics. However, segmentation results suggest that no GAN is capable of reproducing the full richness of medical datasets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it