Evaluation of pseudo-healthy image reconstruction for anomaly detection with deep generative models: Application to brain FDG PET
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
Over the past years, pseudo-healthy reconstruction for unsupervised anomaly detection has gained in popularity. This approach has the great advantage of not requiring tedious pixel-wise data annotation and offers possibility to generalize to any kind of anomalies, including that corresponding to rare diseases. By training a deep generative model with only images from healthy subjects, the model will learn to reconstruct pseudo-healthy images. This pseudo-healthy reconstruction is then compared to the input to detect and localize anomalies. The evaluation of such methods often relies on a ground truth lesion mask that is available for test data, which may not exist depending on the application.<br>We propose an evaluation procedure based on the simulation of realistic abnormal images to validate pseudo-healthy reconstruction methods when no ground truth is available. This allows us to extensively test generative models on different kinds of anomalies and measuring their performance using the pair of normal and abnormal images corresponding to the same subject. It can be used as a preliminary automatic step to validate the capacity of a generative model to reconstruct pseudo-healthy images, before a more advanced validation step that would require clinician’s expertise. We apply this framework to the reconstruction of 3D brain FDG PET using a convolutional variational autoencoder with the aim to detect as early as possible the neurodegeneration markers that are specific to dementia such as Alzheimer’s disease.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 | 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