MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generation of 3D MRI-Intensity Breast Images Using a Class Conditional Latent Diffusion Model

2025· article· W7117535711 on OpenAlexaff
Nasrin Abharian, Joe LoVetri, Vahab Khoshdel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderPattern recognition (psychology)VisualizationSet (abstract data type)Class (philosophy)FidelityData setIterative reconstruction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to create a machine-learning model that generates high quality 3D MRI-intensity images of the breast based on user defined input of desired features (i.e., BI-Rads class, tumours, etc.). In this particular study, we develop a technique that uses a conditional 3D latent diffusion model. The training set consists of 94 high-resolution 3D MRI intensity images obtained from a public-domain database. During training, computational costs are reduced by using the latent space of a separately trained autoencoder that compresses the images. Thus, the diffusion model generates images in the latent space, which are subsequently converted to high resolution images using the decoder of the trained autoencoder. Current conditioning is based on a modified version of BI-Rads density classification. It is found that the latent space preserves key structural and textural features of the original MRI data, enabling consistent reconstruction and effective class separation. The generated 3D images exhibit high visual fidelity and maintain continuity across slices, indicating that the model has successfully captured the underlying data distribution. Having 3D MRI intensity images will allow us to generate labeled complex-valued permittivity phantoms for use in microwave imaging research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207