REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 10 references
PRO: Projection Domain Synthesis for CT Imaging
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper reports a projection-domain latent diffusion model, PRO, that generates CT sinograms from scratch under anatomical text prompts; the synthetic data match or improve low-dose and sparse-view reconstruction.
desk verdict Real novelty in text-conditioned sinogram synthesis, but the paper's own tables undercut the main data-augmentation claim. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is DMPD, a latent diffusion model whose forward and reverse processes run on a compressed latent code of the sinogram rather than on pixels of the reconstructed image. A text encoder turns prompts such as "head" or "body" into embeddings that select one of several task-specific latent spaces, so each anatomy class gets its own generative trajectory; the denoising U-Net is conditioned on those embeddings through cross-attention. After sampling, the decoder maps the latent back to a sinogram, filtered back projection converts it to an image, and SharpNet, a small U-Net-like CNN trained on synthetic noise pairs, removes residual noise and sharpens detail. The two-stage split is what lets the model keep physical consistency from the projection domain while compensating for the lossy compression of latent diffusion in the image domain.
What would settle it
Generate sinograms with PRO, inject the same physical effects a real scanner has (measured detector noise, beam hardening, scatter), reconstruct and train the downstream reconstruction networks on them; if performance falls to parity with or below training on real low-dose projections, the claim that projection-domain synthesis preserves acquisition physics is refuted.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that CT synthesis belongs in the Radon domain: instead of generating reconstructed images, PRO generates raw sinograms with a latent diffusion model (DMPD), then applies filtered back projection followed by a lightweight CNN refiner (SharpNet). The paper argues this is the first framework that synthesizes CT projection data without any prior measurements and with text-prompt control. The generated projections are claimed to capture cross-detector correlations, material attenuation, and view-dependent anatomical structure that image-domain methods lose, and the downstream experiments, replacing real training data with 2,000 PRO-generated samples in sparse-view and low-dose reconstruction, are offered as evidence that the synthetic data are faithful enough to purpose.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing assumption is that fan-beam projections computed by Siddon's ray-driven algorithm from CT slices behave like real clinical projections, so a diffusion model trained on those simulated sinograms will transfer to genuine scanner data.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If PRO works as reported, synthetic projection data can replace real measured projections when training reconstruction networks, lowering the data-acquisition barrier for CT imaging research.
- The same trained model can serve multiple downstream tasks by switching text prompts, so a single foundation model could generate training data for low-dose, sparse-view, artifact-correction, and protocol-optimization studies.
- Because generation happens before reconstruction, synthetic data inherit the scanner geometry and physics of the forward model used to create training sinograms, which image-domain generators cannot do.
- The two-stage arrangement means residual sinogram errors are cleaned up after reconstruction, so projection-domain synthesis does not require perfectly noise-free raw data to be useful.
Reading between the lines
- The paper leaves the 500 head CT images used for the "head" prompt out of its Data Specification, so the cross-anatomy generalization claim is not yet reproducible from the manuscript alone.
- A test the authors do not run is mixed-data training: blending PRO-generated sinograms with real projections in controlled proportions, which would directly probe the method's value as an augmentation tool under realistic dose constraints.
- The realism ceiling is set by Siddon's ray-driven forward model; replacing that simulator with a Monte Carlo or measured scatter and beam-hardening model would show whether the claimed physics fidelity survives contact with real scanners.
- Prompt controllability could be quantified by training an independent anatomy classifier on real CT and checking whether images reconstructed from "head" and "body" prompts are classified correctly.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper introduces PRO, a two-stage framework for generating synthetic CT projection data (sinograms) using a latent diffusion model conditioned on anatomical text prompts, followed by FBP reconstruction and a CNN-based SharpNet refinement. The authors claim that PRO is the first projection-domain CT synthesis method that operates entirely without prior measurements, and that incorporating PRO-generated projection data significantly improves downstream sparse-view and low-dose CT reconstruction. Experiments use simulated fan-beam projections of AAPM abdominal slices, compare generation quality via FID/IS/KID against image-domain and projection-domain baselines, and test downstream performance by training GMSD and OSDM on PRO-generated versus original AAPM data.
Significance. If the downstream gains were real, projection-domain synthesis with prompt control would be a valuable contribution to CT data augmentation and to physics-aware generative modeling. The paper provides public code, detailed geometry settings for the abdomen simulator, and a broad set of generation-quality metrics, which are strengths. However, the headline claim of significant downstream improvement is not supported by the paper's own tables, and several claims about physical simulation and the head-prompt experiments are not backed by the described implementation and data. The generation-quality results are also mixed, with PRO not being best on FID in Table I.
major comments (4)
- [Section IV-G, Tables V and VI; Abstract and Section I] The central claim that incorporating PRO-synthesized data 'significantly improves' downstream low-dose and sparse-view reconstruction is contradicted by the quantitative results. In Table V, PRO data yields higher PSNR than AAPM data in only 1 of 4 view settings (90 views, 37.321 vs 37.150 dB) and lower PSNR at 60, 120, and 180 views (e.g., 40.586 vs 42.091 dB at 180 views); SSIM also drops at 120 and 180 views (0.9481 vs 0.9586 and 0.9625 vs 0.9706). In Table VI, PRO improves PSNR in only 1 of 3 noise levels (5e4, 41.74 vs 41.20 dB) and is worse at 1e5 and 1e4 (e.g., 34.56 vs 37.43 dB at 1e4); SSIM is worse in all three noise settings. Section IV-G's own text describes the results as 'comparable performance,' but the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions claim significant improvement. This load-bearing claim must either be supported by new experiments (e.g., multiple seeds, confidence intervals, or a synthetic-plus-real augmentation setting) or be removed and reframed throughout the paper.
- [Section V (Discussion) and Section IV-A] The 'head' prompt experiments are not reproducible because the 500 head CT images used to train the model are never described in the Data Specification. Section IV-A specifies only the AAPM abdominal dataset, including slice counts and geometry; no source, preprocessing, or train/test split is given for the head images. Since prompt-conditioned generation across anatomies is one of the paper's key contributions, the dataset description must be added and the head-prompt evaluation (validated on '100 held out images') must be defined precisely.
- [Section III-A and Section IV-A] The manuscript repeatedly claims that projection-domain synthesis explicitly incorporates or simulates beam hardening, scattering, and material attenuation. The actual forward model in Section IV-A is Siddon's ray-driven algorithm applied to AAPM CT slices, which computes ray line integrals without modeling beam hardening or scatter. Either the physics claims must be restricted to what the simulator implements (geometry and linear attenuation), or the simulator must be extended accordingly; as written, the claims overstate the method's physical fidelity.
- [Section IV-G] The downstream experiment protocol is incomplete. The manuscript does not state the test set used for GMSD and OSDM evaluation, whether the reported numbers are means over multiple runs, or any uncertainty or statistical significance measure. Given that the favorable PSNR differences are 0.17–0.54 dB, significance cannot be assessed. This information is necessary to evaluate the 'significantly improves' claim even for the entries where PRO appears better.
minor comments (4)
- [Section IV-D, Table I] The text states that PRO achieves the second lowest FID score 'indicating higher visual fidelity' and then emphasizes outperformance on IS and KID; however, StyleGAN has a lower FID (0.4018) than PRO (0.4241). The discussion should acknowledge that PRO does not win on FID in this comparison.
- [Section IV-E and Table II] The caption of Table II says 'GENERATING 100 CT IMAGES' but the table and surrounding text also report results for 1000 images; the caption and text should be aligned.
- [Section IV-B and Appendix] The number of DDIM sampling steps is given as 250 in Section IV-B, but Section IV-B later states 'the first stage model conducts 72 steps of DDIM sampling,' and the Appendix also uses 72 steps; please clarify which protocol applies to each result.
- [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'neglects the easurement process' in Section I, 'Downsapling' in Table IV, and inconsistent terminology for the 4x latent configuration; these should be corrected.
Circularity Check
No circular derivation: the downstream comparisons are direct measurements, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions; the self-citations are contextual, and the paper's internal inconsistencies are evidence problems, not circularity.
full rationale
PRO is a latent diffusion model trained on fan-beam sinograms obtained by Siddon-ray forward projection of AAPM abdominal slices (Section IV-A), and the downstream experiments (Section IV-G) train GMSD/OSDM either on 2,000 sampled AAPM sinograms or on 2,000 PRO-generated sinograms, then test on the same reconstruction benchmark. No parameter fitted to the downstream outcome is later reported as a prediction: the PSNR/SSIM/MSE values in Tables V and VI are direct measurements rather than quantities forced by the training objective or by the generative model's definition. There is no equation in which the claimed result equals its input by construction. The overlap between the generator's training distribution and the downstream evaluation distribution is a dataset-design property, not a reduction of a prediction to an input. The self-citations to GMSD, OSDM, RAP, and SWORD (Section I) are contextual and name the downstream networks; they are not used as an external uniqueness theorem, and no load-bearing argument is outsourced solely to these citations. The paper does have serious non-circularity defects: the Abstract claims that synthetic data 'significantly improves performance,' while Section IV-G itself describes the result as 'comparable performance,' and several entries in Tables V and VI show PRO-trained models below the AAPM-trained baselines. In addition, Section V's 'head' prompt experiments rely on 500 head CT images never described in the Data Specification, and the validation data are said to come from the AAPM dataset, which is otherwise described as abdominal. These are internal-evidence and correctness concerns, not evidence that the derivation is circular.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- Latent downsampling factor f =
4
- SharpNet noise sigma =
0.1
- DDIM sampling steps =
250 (DMPD) and 72 (first stage generation)
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Siddon ray-driven fan-beam projection of AAPM slices produces sinograms representative of real CT measurements
- domain assumption SharpNet trained on Gaussian-noise pairs generalizes to artifacts from projection-domain diffusion and FBP
- domain assumption The text prompts 'head' and 'body' correspond to distinct latent spaces that can be learned from the available data
- standard math Standard latent diffusion training with cross-attention text conditioning is sufficient to learn sinogram structure
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of PRO: Projection Domain Synthesis for CT Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/775TRN2N
@misc{pith2026250613443,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: PRO: Projection Domain Synthesis for CT Imaging},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/775TRN2N}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13443}
}
read the original abstract
Synthetic CT projection data is crucial for advancing imaging research, yet its generation remains challenging. Current image domain methods are limited as they cannot simulate the physical acquisition process or utilize the complete statistical information present in projection data, restricting their utility and fidelity. In this work, we present PRO, a projection domain synthesis foundation model for CT imaging. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that performs CT synthesis in the projection domain. Unlike previous approaches that operate in the image domain, PRO learns rich structural representations from projection data and leverages anatomical text prompts for controllable synthesis. Projection data generation models can utilize complete measurement signals and simulate the physical processes of scanning, including material attenuation characteristics, beam hardening, scattering, and projection geometry, and support research on downstream imaging tasks. Moreover, PRO functions as a foundation model, capable of generalizing across diverse downstream tasks by adjusting its generative behavior via prompt inputs. Experimental results demonstrated that incorporating our synthesized data significantly improves performance across multiple downstream tasks, including low-dose and sparse-view reconstruction. These findings underscore the versatility and scalability of PRO in data generation for various CT applications. These results highlight the potential of projection domain synthesis as a powerful tool for data augmentation and robust CT imaging. Our source code is publicly available at: https://github.com/yqx7150/PRO.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[4]
Hierarchical amortized GAN for 3D high resolution medical image synthesis,
L. Sun, J. Chen, and K. Batmanghelich, et al, “Hierarchical amortized GAN for 3D high resolution medical image synthesis,” IEEE JBHI., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 3966 -3975, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2022.3172976. N. Kodali, J. Abernethy, and J. Hays, et al, “On convergence and sta- bility of gans,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07215,
arXiv 2022
-
[5]
Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models,
W. H. L. Pinaya, P. D. Tudosiu, and J. Dafflon, et al, “Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models,” MICCAI. Cham: Springer Na- ture Switzerland, 2022, pp. 117-126. P. Guo, C. Zhao, and D. Yang, et al, “MAISI: Medical AI for synthetic Imaging,” WACV., Tucson, AZ, USA, 2025, pp. 4430-4441. I. E. Hamamci, A. Tezcan, and A. G. Simse...
work page 2022
-
[9]
Solving inverse problems in med- ical imaging with score -based generative models ,
Y. Song, L. Shen, and L. Xing, et al, “Solving inverse problems in med- ical imaging with score -based generative models ,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08005,
-
[2009]
Generating sequences with recurrent neural networks,
A. Graves, “Generating sequences with recurrent neural networks, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.0850,
-
[2016]
Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio,
A. Oord, S. Dieleman, and O. Vinyals , et al, “Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499,
-
[2017]
Synthetic data-what, why and how?,
J. Jordon, L. Szpruch, and F. Houssiau, et al, “Synthetic data-what, why and how?,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03257,
-
[2019]
Deep learning-based image reconstruction for different medical imaging modalities ,
M. Yaqub, F. Jinchao, and K. Arshid, et al, “Deep learning-based image reconstruction for different medical imaging modalities ,” Comput. Math. Methods Med., 2022(1): 8750648,
work page 2022
-
[2020]
2D medical image synthesis using transformer -based denoising diffusion probabilistic model ,
S. Pan, T. Wang, and R. L. J. Qiu, et al, “2D medical image synthesis using transformer -based denoising diffusion probabilistic model ,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, v0l. 68, no. 10 pp. 105004,2023. T. Karras, S. Laine, and M. Aittala, et al, “Analyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan” CVPR., pp. 8110-8119,
work page 2023
Show all 10 references
-
[2022]
Synthetic data: Opening the data floodgates to enable faster, more directed development of machine learning methods,
J. Jordon, A. Wilson, and M. Schaar, et al, “Synthetic data: Opening the data floodgates to enable faster, more directed development of machine learning methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04580,
2012 arXiv
-
[2025]
Masked sinogram model with transformer for ill-posed computed tomography reconstruction: a pre- liminary study,
Z. Liu, R. Kettimuthu, and I. Foster, “Masked sinogram model with transformer for ill-posed computed tomography reconstruction: a pre- liminary study,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01356,
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.