Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Label-Efficient Data Augmentation with Video Diffusion Models for Guidewire Segmentation in Cardiac Fluoroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By splitting video generation into scene and motion, a new diffusion method synthesizes labeled fluoroscopy videos that lift guidewire segmentation Dice to around 0.61.

desk verdict SF-VD's two-stage diffusion pipeline for fluoroscopy video synthesis is clever, but training the generator on the test split makes the reported segmentation gains untrustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16050 v4 pith:GSSFRZQV submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CV cs.AI

Shaoyan Pan , Yikang Liu , Lin Zhao , Eric Z. Chen , Xiao Chen , Terrence Chen , Shanhui Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords guidewiresegmentationcardiacfluoroscopyvideodiffusionmodeldataaugmentationlabel-efficientlearningclassifier-freeguidanceframe-consistencysamplingmedicalsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that the shortage of annotated guidewire videos in cardiac fluoroscopy can be sidestepped by generating synthetic training videos with a diffusion model that is label-efficient. Its central move is to split the hard joint distribution of a video given wire masks into a scene distribution for the first frame and a motion distribution for subsequent frames, each modeled by a separate 2D diffusion network. This split lets the scene model train on a mixture of fully annotated videos and thousands of unannotated frames, so the total annotation requirement stays at about 400 fully labeled videos. The paper's main evidence is that augmenting segmentation training with these synthetic videos raises Dice from about 0.52 to about 0.61 for generic networks such as Dynvnet, SwinUnetr, and MLP-Mixer, and improves or matches wire-specific models like PARN, RTGN, and Ariadne+. If the claim holds, it means useful data augmentation for thin-structure medical segmentation can be produced from very limited labeled video.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the distribution decomposition $P(V \mid M) \approx P(I_0 \mid M_0)\,P(I_1,\ldots,I_{N-1} \mid M_1,\ldots,M_{N-1}, I_0)$, realized as two 2D conditional DDPMs with classifier-free guidance. The scene model $\theta_s$ synthesizes the leading frame from a wire mask; the motion model $\theta_m$ synthesizes subsequent frames from a mask plus one or two reference frames, and is used both for the concluding frame and, with frame-consistency sampling, for intermediate frames. The segmentation-guided mechanism injects the gradient of a wire-segmentation network into the reverse process, scaling wire contrast by a strength $\gamma$ chosen per sample.

What would settle it

Train SF-VD on fluoroscopy videos that violate the simple-motion assumption, such as rapid table panning, large out-of-view device motion, or significant breathing-induced organ displacement, then measure the downstream Dice of a fixed segmentation network trained with the generated videos; if the augmentation no longer improves over no augmentation, the motion-model assumption is the failure point. A second, more direct falsifier is to check whether the frame-consistency sampling actually prevents temporal artifacts by computing FVD on videos generated from held-out mask sequences and asking human raters to detect frame-to-frame anatomical discontinuities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the conditional distribution of a fluoroscopy video given a sequence of guidewire masks can be split productively into two 2D conditional diffusion problems rather than one 3D video diffusion problem. A scene-distribution model generates the leading frame from a mask, and a motion-distribution model generates every later frame from the leading frame (or from both endpoint frames) plus the corresponding masks. The motion model also takes the frame distance as input, and a frame-consistency sampling procedure generates intermediate frames conditioned on both a leading and a concluding frame, which the ablation shows is what suppresses jittery background motion. A separate segmentation network guides the reverse diffusion to modulate guidewire contrast, increasing appearance diversity. On a private hospital dataset, the authors report that the resulting synthetic videos improve Dice from about 0.52 to about 0.61 for three generic segmentation networks and improve or match wire-specific segmentation models, with the best results coming from combining frame-consistency and segmentation-guided mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The motion-distribution model is trained on only 400 fully annotated 16-frame videos, so the whole approach hinges on cardiac fluoroscopy motion being simple enough—small in-view displacements, stable appearance—that a 2D conditional diffusion model can reproduce heartbeat and breathing motion without temporal artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Augmenting with SF-VD synthetic videos raises Dice of generic 3D segmentation networks (Dynvnet, SwinUnetr, MLP-Mixer) from about 0.52 to about 0.61, and reduces Hausdorff distance by a factor of roughly three to seven compared with unaugmented training.
  • SF-VD outperforms or matches both a 3D video diffusion baseline (VD) and a latent video diffusion baseline (LVDM) on video realism (FVD), diversity, and downstream segmentation, while producing more novel content as measured by Overfitting Score.
  • Frame-consistency sampling is what improves region-overlap metrics, while segmentation-guided contrast modulation is what reduces distance-based errors; combining both yields the best overall segmentation, so each mechanism contributes a distinct benefit.
  • Because the scene model can be trained with unannotated images, the effective annotation cost of the method is concentrated in the motion model, which needs only fully labeled videos—suggesting that unannotated fluoroscopy archives can be leveraged for augmentation.
  • The paper positions SF-VD as the first fluoroscopy video synthesis approach for guidewire segmentation augmentation, so if its results replicate, it provides a new tool for label-efficient training in interventional imaging.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference, beyond the paper: the scene-plus-motion split appears generic to thin interventional devices, but the paper only demonstrates it for guidewires; a natural extension is to catheters, stents, and ablation tips, where annotated video is similarly scarce.
  • Inference: because the evaluation uses a private, single-center dataset, the reported Dice gains may not transfer across X-ray vendors or institutions; a multi-center study would be needed to establish generalizability.
  • Inference: the 40-second per-video generation cost on an A100, stated as a limitation in the paper, makes large-scale augmentation expensive; distilling each 2D diffusion model into a consistency model would likely reduce this by an order of magnitude.
  • Inference: the paper does not measure how segmentation performance varies with the number of synthetic videos; we expect a saturation point exists, and identifying it would let practitioners match generation budget to annotation budget.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SF-VD, a data-augmentation framework that trains two 2D diffusion models to synthesize labeled cardiac fluoroscopy videos for guidewire segmentation: a scene model generates the leading frame conditioned on a guidewire mask, a motion model generates subsequent frames, and a frame-consistency sampling stage generates intermediate frames between already-sampled endpoints. A segmentation network guides the reverse process to vary wire contrast. The authors train and evaluate downstream generic and specialized segmentation models with and without augmentation, reporting Dice/HD gains together with FVD/DS/OS video-quality comparisons and ablations of the two proposed components.

Significance. The paper addresses a practical problem, annotation-efficient training for thin guidewire segmentation in fluoroscopy, and the two-model decomposition of scene and motion distributions is a reasonable inductive bias for sharing unlabeled image data with a small fully annotated video corpus. The paper also evaluates across many architectures and includes ablations. However, the central empirical claim is not currently supported: the generative models and the segmentation-guiding network are trained on the same F-video corpus from which the segmentation validation/test splits are later drawn, so the reported Dice improvements (e.g., 0.52 to 0.61 for Dynvnet in Table 2) may reflect leakage rather than augmentation quality. If re-run with a clean protocol, the methodology could be valuable, but as submitted the quantitative evaluation is not trustworthy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experiments, 'Wire Segmentation Evaluation'; Appendix B.3] The evaluation protocol gives the generative models access to the segmentation test and validation videos. The scene model theta_s is trained on the P-image and F-video datasets, and the motion model theta_m is trained on the F-video dataset, while the downstream segmentation evaluation splits the same F-video corpus into 80/10/10 (Experiments, 'Wire Segmentation Evaluation'; Appendix B.3). Moreover, the segmentation network psi used for guidance is trained on 'all annotated frames from the P-image and F-video dataset', which includes the held-out frames. Hence the 1,200 synthetic training videos can contain the exact backgrounds, anatomy, and wire contrast of the validation/test videos, and with 400 16-frame videos at 512 by 512, near-copy or memorized frames are plausible. The Dice/HD improvements in Table 2 are therefore not clean evidence that synthetic augmentation transfers to unseen data. The experiments need to be rerun with theta_s, theta_m, and psi trained only on the segmentation training split, the validation split used only for model selection, and the test split never involved in any generative training.
  2. [Appendix E, Algorithm 3; Eqs. (4), (6), (8), and (9)] Algorithm 3 is inconsistent with the equations and with the text's guidance weights. Stage 1 line 8 gives epsilon_bar = (1 - omega) epsilon_mask + omega epsilon_no-mask, which is the opposite assignment to Eq. (4); Stage 2 line 18 does the same relative to Eq. (6); and Stage 3 line 28 defines epsilon_no-frame as theta_m(XS, s, M, F1), although Eq. (8) requires the mask-only function theta_m(XS, s, M), so the F1 condition is double-counted in line 30. The text states omega = -2.5 for Eq. (6) and -1.5 for Eq. (8), but Algorithm 3 does not set these values, and the swapped signs make the actual weighting ambiguous. Finally, line 29 computes a variance-like quantity multiplied by a gradient of M to X rather than applying the mean modification gamma * sigma^2 * grad log p_psi(M|x) from Eq. (9). Because no code is released, these inconsistencies make the published method not unambiguously reproducible.
  3. [Appendix D, Table 3; Ablation Study] The text claims that the simultaneous application of FC and SG yields the best results for Dice, but Table 3 reports Dice 0.60 for FC-only versus 0.59 for FC+SG, so the best Dice is achieved without SG. SG does improve HD, G2RE, and R2GE, but the summary sentence should be corrected to say that the combination yields the best boundary/distance metrics rather than the best Dice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results, paragraph after Table 1] The text says SF-VD achieves the 'highest FVD,' but FVD is labeled with a down arrow and SF-VD has the lowest value in Table 1; please rephrase.
  2. [Appendix B.3] Please specify the total number of gradient updates or iterations for each training setting, since reducing epochs from 1000 to 250 when the augmented dataset is more than four times larger is only a fair comparison if the total optimization budget is matched.
  3. [Appendix E, Algorithm 2] The comment 'Stage 1: Leading Frame Synthesis' inside Algorithm 2 appears to be a copy-paste artifact; Algorithm 2 trains the segmentation network.
  4. [Methodology, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The symbol F is used for a single leading frame in Eqs. (5)-(6) and for leading/concluding frames F1/F2 in Eqs. (7)-(8); please unify the notation.
  5. [General] The paper does not include a data/code availability statement; the private dataset and unreleased code further limit reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the segmentation-gain claim is experimentally evaluated rather than derived from the model's own inputs; self-citations are minor.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined here. SF-VD decomposes the video distribution into scene and motion components (Eqs. 1-8) using standard DDPM, classifier-free guidance, and classifier-guidance constructions whose foundations are external (Ho et al. 2020; Nichol and Dhariwal 2021; Ho 2022; Dhariwal and Nichol 2021). The downstream claim, that synthetic augmentation raises guidewire segmentation Dice from about 0.52 to about 0.61, is an empirical result on held-out real videos: segmentation models are trained on 80% of the F-video set plus 1200 synthesized videos and tested on the remaining 10% (Experiments). The masks condition generation and label the synthetic data, but that is the intended augmentation mechanism, not a reduction of the prediction to the model's inputs. Self-citations to the authors' DS/OS metrics (Pan et al. 2021) and MLP-Mixer architecture (Pan et al. 2023a) are present but not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from the authors' prior work. Two non-circularity concerns should be weighed under soundness rather than circularity: (1) the generative models are trained on the entire F-video dataset before the 80/10/10 split, so the generator has seen the test videos and the reported gains may be inflated by test-set leakage; (2) Appendix E Algorithm 3 contradicts Eqs. 4, 6, and 8 in the placement of conditional/unconditional noise terms and guidance signs, so the method as published is not unambiguously reproducible. The authors also note in Limitations that the small number of training videos may limit output quality and variability, which is a data-scale limitation, not a circular step. Overall, no equation-level reduction of the claimed prediction to its own inputs was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard diffusion and classifier-free guidance math, plus domain beliefs about fluoroscopy motion and data distribution. The manually chosen guidance weights ω and γ are free parameters that affect generation quality but are not systematically tuned.

free parameters (4)
  • ω_s = 0.7
    Classifier-free guidance weight for the scene model, empirically selected (Section 'Modeling the Scene Distribution').
  • ω_concluding = -2.5
    Guidance weight when generating the concluding frame with the motion model (Section 'A Three-stage Approach').
  • ω_intermediate = -1.5
    Guidance weight for intermediate frames in frame-consistency sampling (Section 'A Three-stage Approach').
  • γ = 0-15, random
    Strength of segmentation-guided contrast adjustment; randomly chosen per sample to maintain realism (Section 'Segmentation-guided Mechanism').
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DDPM/IDDPM forward-reverse Gaussian diffusion and variational objective
    Basis of both 2D diffusion models (Eq. 1 and Appendix A).
  • standard math Classifier-free guidance score composition
    Used to combine conditional and unconditional noise estimates (Eqs. 2-8).
  • domain assumption Cardiac fluoroscopy motion is simple enough for a 2D conditional DM
    Paper states objects stay in field of view and appearance is stable, so a 2D model suffices (Section 'Modeling the Motion Distribution').
  • domain assumption Unannotated frames share the distribution of annotated frames
    The scene model is trained on a mixture of annotated and unannotated images to increase background variability (Section 'Modeling the Scene Distribution').
  • domain assumption The manually collected hospital data are representative of cardiac fluoroscopy
    No public dataset exists; generalization beyond these hospitals is not demonstrated (Section 'Datasets').

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Label-Efficient Data Augmentation with Video Diffusion Models for Guidewire Segmentation in Cardiac Fluoroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSSFRZQV

@misc{pith2026241216050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Label-Efficient Data Augmentation with Video Diffusion Models for Guidewire Segmentation in Cardiac Fluoroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSSFRZQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16050}
}
read the original abstract

The accurate segmentation of guidewires in interventional cardiac fluoroscopy videos is crucial for computer-aided navigation tasks. Although deep learning methods have demonstrated high accuracy and robustness in wire segmentation, they require substantial annotated datasets for generalizability, underscoring the need for extensive labeled data to enhance model performance. To address this challenge, we propose the Segmentation-guided Frame-consistency Video Diffusion Model (SF-VD) to generate large collections of labeled fluoroscopy videos, augmenting the training data for wire segmentation networks. SF-VD leverages videos with limited annotations by independently modeling scene distribution and motion distribution. It first samples the scene distribution by generating 2D fluoroscopy images with wires positioned according to a specified input mask, and then samples the motion distribution by progressively generating subsequent frames, ensuring frame-to-frame coherence through a frame-consistency strategy. A segmentation-guided mechanism further refines the process by adjusting wire contrast, ensuring a diverse range of visibility in the synthesized image. Evaluation on a fluoroscopy dataset confirms the superior quality of the generated videos and shows significant improvements in guidewire segmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SF-VD as a strong data augmentation tool for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the three-stage approach in SF-VD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Video Quality Comparison among SF-VD and Benchmarked Video Diffusion Models. Each sample includes a se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Segmentation-guided Mechanism Generates Videos with Wires with Various Contrasts. Each row shows a video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualization of Fluoroscopy Videos Generated by the Full SF-VD Framework and SF-VD without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Avrahami, O.; Hayes, T.; Gafni, O.; Gupta, S.; Taigman, Y.; Parikh, D.; Lischinski, D.; Fried, O.; and Yin, X. 2023. Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for controllable image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18370--18380

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Blattmann, A.; Dockhorn, T.; Kulal, S.; Mendelevitch, D.; Kilian, M.; Lorenz, D.; Levi, Y.; English, Z.; Voleti, V.; Letts, A.; et al. 2023 a . Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    W.; Fidler, S.; and Kreis, K

    Blattmann, A.; Rombach, R.; Ling, H.; Dockhorn, T.; Kim, S. W.; Fidler, S.; and Kreis, K. 2023 b . Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22563--22575

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    D.; and Palli, G

    Caporali, A.; Zanella, R.; Greogrio, D. D.; and Palli, G. 2022. Ariadne+: Deep Learning--Based Augmented Framework for the Instance Segmentation of Wires. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 18(12): 8607--8617

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Chen, H.; Zhang, Y.; Cun, X.; Xia, M.; Wang, X.; Weng, C.; and Shan, Y. 2024. Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7310--7320

    2024

  6. [6]

    Chen, T.; Kornblith, S.; Norouzi, M.; and Hinton, G. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, 1597--1607. PMLR

    2020

  7. [7]

    Dhariwal, P.; and Nichol, A. 2021. Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis. ArXiv, abs/2105.05233

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    K.; Odonchimed, S.; and Xiao, F

    Dorjsembe, Z.; Pao, H.-K. K.; Odonchimed, S.; and Xiao, F. 2023. Conditional Diffusion Models for Semantic 3D Brain MRI Synthesis. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 28: 4084--4093

    work page 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Du, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Tan, S.; Wu, X.; Dou, Q.; Li, Z.; Li, G.; and Wan, X. 2023. ArSDM: colonoscopy images synthesis with adaptive refinement semantic diffusion models. In International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 339--349. Springer

    2023

  2. [10]

    Gafni, O.; Polyak, A.; Ashual, O.; Sheynin, S.; Parikh, D.; and Taigman, Y. 2022. Make-a-scene: Scene-based text-to-image generation with human priors. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 89--106. Springer

    2022

  3. [11]

    Ge, S.; Nah, S.; Liu, G.; Poon, T.; Tao, A.; Catanzaro, B.; Jacobs, D.; Huang, J.-B.; Liu, M.-Y.; and Balaji, Y. 2023. Preserve your own correlation: A noise prior for video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22930--22941

    2023

  4. [12]

    Gonz \'a lez, C.; Bravo-S \'a nchez, L.; and Arbelaez, P. 2020. ISINet: An Instance-Based Approach for Surgical Instrument Segmentation. In Martel, A. L.; Abolmaesumi, P.; Stoyanov, D.; Mateus, D.; Zuluaga, M. A.; Zhou, S. K.; Racoceanu, D.; and Joskowicz, L., eds., Medical Im...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27

    2014

  6. [14]

    Gu, J.; Wang, S.; Zhao, H.; Lu, T.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Z.; Xu, S.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, Y.-G.; and Xu, H. 2023. Reuse and diffuse: Iterative denoising for text-to-video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03549

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Guo, Y.; Yang, C.; Rao, A.; Liang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Qiao, Y.; Agrawala, M.; Lin, D.; and Dai, B. 2023. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R.; and Xu, D

    Hatamizadeh, A.; Nath, V.; Tang, Y.; Yang, D.; Roth, H. R.; and Xu, D. 2021. Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, 272--284. Springer

    2021

  9. [17]

    He, Y.; Yang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Shan, Y.; and Chen, Q. 2022. Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity video generation with arbitrary lengths. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13221

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ho, J. 2022. Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. ArXiv, abs/2207.12598

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P.; Poole, B.; Norouzi, M.; Fleet, D

    Ho, J.; Chan, W.; Saharia, C.; Whang, J.; Gao, R.; Gritsenko, A.; Kingma, D. P.; Poole, B.; Norouzi, M.; Fleet, D. J.; et al. 2022. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ho , J.; Salimans , T.; Gritsenko , A.; Chan , W.; Norouzi , M.; and Fleet , D. J. 2022. Video Diffusion Models . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.03458

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    F.; Kohl, S

    Isensee, F.; Jaeger, P. F.; Kohl, S. A. A.; Petersen, J.; and Maier-Hein, K. 2020. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Methods, 18: 203 -- 211

    2020

  15. [23]

    Khachatryan, L.; Movsisyan, A.; Tadevosyan, V.; Henschel, R.; Wang, Z.; Navasardyan, S.; and Shi, H. 2023. Text2video-zero: Text-to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 15954--15964

    2023

  16. [24]

    Konz, N.; Chen, Y.; Dong, H.; and Mazurowski, M. A. 2024. Anatomically-controllable medical image generation with segmentation-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05210

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    C.; Vaidya, K.; Jain, A

    Lee, B. C.; Vaidya, K.; Jain, A. K.; and Chen, A. 2020. Guidewire Segmentation in 4D Ultrasound Sequences Using Recurrent Fully Convolutional Networks. In Hu, Y.; Licandro, R.; Noble, J. A.; Hutter, J.; Aylward, S.; Melbourne, A.; Abaci Turk, E.; and Torrents Barrena, J., eds....

    2020

  18. [26]

    Liang, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhou, S.; Li, C.; and Loy, C. C. 2024. Control Color: Multimodal Diffusion-based Interactive Image Colorization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10855

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J.; Liu, T.; Patel, P.; and Yang, X

    Liu, Y.; Lei, Y.; Fu, Y.; Wang, T.; Tang, X.; Jiang, X.; Curran, W. J.; Liu, T.; Patel, P.; and Yang, X. 2020. CT-based multi-organ segmentation using a 3D self-attention U-net network for pancreatic radiotherapy. Medical physics, 47(9): 4316--4324

    2020

  20. [28]

    Liu, Y.; Zhang, K.; Li, Y.; Yan, Z.; Gao, C.; Chen, R.; Yuan, Z.; Huang, Y.; Sun, H.; Gao, J.; et al. 2024. Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lugmayr, A.; Danelljan, M.; Romero, A.; Yu, F.; Timofte, R.; and Van Gool, L. 2022. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11461--11471

    2022

  22. [30]

    Mao, J.; Wang, X.; and Aizawa, K. 2023. Guided image synthesis via initial image editing in diffusion model. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 5321--5329

    2023

  23. [31]

    Milletari, F.; Navab, N.; and Ahmadi, S.-A. 2016. V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In 2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV), 565--571. Ieee

    2016

  24. [32]

    Nichol, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Ramesh, A.; Shyam, P.; Mishkin, P.; McGrew, B.; Sutskever, I.; and Chen, M. 2021. GLIDE: Towards Photorealistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Diffusion Models. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2021

  25. [33]

    Q.; and Dhariwal, P

    Nichol, A. Q.; and Dhariwal, P. 2021. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 8162--8171. PMLR

    2021

  26. [34]

    Pan, S.; Chang, C.-W.; Wang, T.; Wynne, J.; Hu, M.; Lei, Y.; Liu, T.; Patel, P.; Roper, J.; and Yang, X. 2023 a . Abdomen CT multi-organ segmentation using token-based MLP-Mixer. Medical Physics, 50(5): 3027--3038

    2023

  27. [35]

    T.; Stayman, J

    Pan, S.; Flores, J.; Lin, C. T.; Stayman, J. W.; and Gang, G. J. 2021. Generative adversarial networks and radiomics supervision for lung lesion synthesis. In Medical Imaging 2021: Physics of Medical Imaging, volume 11595, 167--172. SPIE

    2021

  28. [36]

    Pan, S.; Wang, T.; Qiu, R. L. J.; Axente, M.; Chang, C.-W.; Peng, J.; Patel, A. B.; Shelton, J.; Patel, S. A.; Roper, J.; and Yang, X. 2023 b . 2D medical image synthesis using transformer-based denoising diffusion probabilistic model. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 68(10): 105004

    2023

  29. [37]

    Pandey, K.; Mukherjee, A.; Rai, P.; and Kumar, A. 2022. Diffusevae: Efficient, controllable and high-fidelity generation from low-dimensional latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00308

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pathak, D.; Krahenbuhl, P.; Donahue, J.; Darrell, T.; and Efros, A. A. 2016. Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2536--2544

    2016

  31. [39]

    A.; Bell, M.; Theessen, H.; Ecabert, O.; Bresnahan, J

    Prasad, M.; Cassar, A.; Fetterly, K. A.; Bell, M.; Theessen, H.; Ecabert, O.; Bresnahan, J. F.; and Lerman, A. 2016. Co-registration of angiography and intravascular ultrasound images through image-based device tracking. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 88(7):...

    2016

  32. [40]

    Song, Y.; Dhariwal, P.; Chen, M.; and Sutskever, I. 2023. Consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01469

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    P.; Kumar, A.; Ermon, S.; and Poole, B

    Song, Y.; Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Kingma, D. P.; Kumar, A.; Ermon, S.; and Poole, B. 2020. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    R.; Landman, B.; Xu, D.; Nath, V.; and Hatamizadeh, A

    Tang, Y.; Yang, D.; Li, W.; Roth, H. R.; Landman, B.; Xu, D.; Nath, V.; and Hatamizadeh, A. 2022. Self-supervised pre-training of swin transformers for 3d medical image analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20730--20740

    2022

  35. [43]

    Unterthiner, T.; Van Steenkiste, S.; Kurach, K.; Marinier, R.; Michalski, M.; and Gelly, S. 2018. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Vöth, T.; Koenig, T.; Eulig, E.; Knaup, M.; Wiesmann, V.; Hörndler, K.; and Kachelrieß, M. 2023. Real-time 3D reconstruction of guidewires and stents using two update X-ray projections in a rotating imaging setup. Medical Physics, 50(9): 5312--5330

    2023

  37. [45]

    Wang, W.; Bao, J.; Zhou, W.; Chen, D.; Chen, D.; Yuan, L.; and Li, H. 2022. Semantic image synthesis via diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.00050

    2022

  38. [46]

    Wu, C.; Liang, J.; Ji, L.; Yang, F.; Fang, Y.; Jiang, D.; and Duan, N. 2022. N \"u wa: Visual synthesis pre-training for neural visual world creation. In European conference on computer vision, 720--736. Springer

    2022

  39. [47]

    Wu, Z.; Sun, J.; Liu, Q.; and Zhang, G. 2008. A Novel Calibration Method for Large-Scale Stereo Vision Sensor based on One-Dimensional Target. 7129

    2008

  40. [48]

    Yang, R.; Srivastava, P.; and Mandt, S. 2023. Diffusion probabilistic modeling for video generation. Entropy, 25(10): 1469

    2023

  41. [49]

    Yu, X.; Li, G.; Lou, W.; Liu, S.; Wan, X.; Chen, Y.; and Li, H. 2023. Diffusion-based data augmentation for nuclei image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 592--602. Springer

    2023

  42. [50]

    Zhang, B.; Bui, M.; Wang, C.; Bourier, F.; Schunkert, H.; and Navab, N. 2022. Real-time guidewire tracking and segmentation in intraoperative x-ray. In Medical Imaging 2022: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling, volume 12034, 283--290. SPIE

    2022

  43. [51]

    Zhang, G.; Wong, H.-C.; Wang, C.; Zhu, J.; Lu, L.; and Teng, G. 2021. A Temporary Transformer Network for Guide- Wire Segmentation. In 2021 14th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI), 1--5

    2021

  44. [52]

    Zhang, L.; Rao, A.; and Agrawala, M. 2023. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3813--3824

    2023

  45. [53]

    Zhou, Y.-J.; Xie, X.-L.; Zhou, X.-H.; Liu, S.-Q.; Bian, G.-B.; and Hou, Z.-G. 2020. Pyramid attention recurrent networks for real-time guidewire segmentation and tracking in intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 83: 101734

    2020

  46. [54]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  47. [55]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.