Generative Adversarial Networks for Anomaly Detection in Biomedical Imaging: A Study on Seven Medical Image Datasets
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
Anomaly detection (AD) is a challenging problem in computer vision. Particularly in the field of medical imaging, AD poses even more challenges due to a number of reasons, including insufficient availability of ground truth (annotated) data. In recent years, AD models based on generative adversarial networks (GANs) have made significant progress. However, their effectiveness in biomedical imaging remains underexplored. In this paper, we present an overview of using GANs for AD, as well as an investigation of state-of-the-art GAN-based AD methods for biomedical imaging and the challenges encountered in detail. We have also specifically investigated the advantages and limitations of AD methods on medical image datasets, conducting experiments using 3 AD methods on 7 medical imaging datasets from different modalities and organs/tissues. Given the highly different findings achieved across these experiments, we further analyzed the results from both data-centric and model-centric points of view. The results showed that none of the methods had reliable performance for detecting abnormalities in medical images. Factors such as the number of training samples, the subtlety of the anomaly, and the dispersion of the anomaly in the images are among the phenomena that highly impact the performance of the AD models. The obtained results were highly variable (AUC: 0.475-0.991; Sensitivity: 0.17-0.98; Specificity: 0.14-0.97). In addition, we provide recommendations for deployment of AD models in medical imaging and foresee important research directions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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