Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Brain Latent Progression: Individual-based Spatiotemporal Disease Progression on 3D Brain MRIs via Latent Diffusion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A latent diffusion model named BrLP predicts an individual's future 3D brain MRIs from a baseline scan and demographic, cognitive, and volumetric covariates, outperforming existing progression models on internal and external tests.

desk verdict A serious, well-executed extension of the BrLP pipeline with real external validation, but the headline SOTA claim is partly inherited from the auxiliary volume predictor and needs an independent anatomical check. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08560 v2 pith:MP4ZS4EW submitted 2025-02-12 cs.CV cs.AI

Lemuel Puglisi , Daniel C. Alexander , Daniele Ravì This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords DiseaseprogressionSpatiotemporalmodelsGenerativeDiffusionBrainMRIAlzheimer'sUncertaintyquantification
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

BrLP claims that individual-level disease progression in 3D brain MRIs can be predicted by combining a latent diffusion model with an auxiliary model that forecasts the volumes of Alzheimer's-related brain regions. Trained on 11,730 T1-weighted scans from 2,805 subjects and tested on an external cohort, it generates follow-up brain images that match real scans more closely than current GAN-, flow-, and diffusion-based baselines, with average MSE reductions of roughly 60 percent. It also introduces Latent Average Stabilization, which averages repeated latent predictions at inference time to enforce spatiotemporal consistency and yields global and voxel-level uncertainty estimates that track prediction error. If correct, BrLP offers a memory-efficient generative tool for simulating individual trajectories of aging and neurodegeneration, and for selecting fast-progressing patients for clinical trials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a conditional latent diffusion pipeline with three trained parts. A variational autoencoder maps each 3D scan into a small latent space; a denoising UNet, optimized with the standard diffusion objective, learns to reverse the forward noise process given covariates $c$; and a ControlNet injects the baseline latent $z^{(A)}$ as a structural condition so the generated scan inherits the subject's anatomy. An auxiliary model, a linear model or a Disease Course Mapping model, forecasts the progression-related volumes $v^{(B)}$ that form part of $c$. The Latent Average Stabilization block, defined by $\mu^{(B)} \approx \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\mathcal{D}(z_T^i, x^{(A)}, c^{(A)})$, averages $m$ latent predictions at inference to suppress noise-induced variation, and this same spread supplies global and voxel-level uncertainty estimates.

What would settle it

An experiment that feeds the subject's actual future region volumes into BrLP's latent diffusion model instead of the auxiliary model's forecasts would settle the claim: if the image-based metrics (MSE, SSIM) do not improve, then the generative model is not exploiting the volumetric conditioning and the reported gains come from the auxiliary forecaster. A second check compares BrLP's long-horizon predictions against simply copying the baseline scan forward; if the no-change baseline matches BrLP's MSE, the model regresses to a conservative average rather than synthesizing new structures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that future T1-weighted brain MRIs for an individual can be generated by conditioning a latent diffusion process on that subject's baseline anatomy, metadata, and predicted regional volumes, and that this beats adversarial, flow-based, and sequence-aware diffusion alternatives. BrLP encodes a baseline scan into a compact latent, uses a ControlNet to inject the subject's brain structure into the denoising UNet, and guides generation with covariates $c = \langle s, v \rangle$, where $s$ holds age, sex, and cognitive status and $v$ holds predicted volumes of the hippocampus, amygdala, lateral ventricles, cerebral cortex, and cerebral white matter. At inference, the Latent Average Stabilization algorithm repeats the reverse diffusion $m$ times from different initial noises and averages the resulting latents before decoding, reducing noise-induced variation. On the internal test set and an external longitudinal cohort, BrLP achieves lower MSE and higher SSIM than DaniNet, CounterSynth, and Latent-SADM, and lower mean absolute error for both conditioned and unconditioned region volumes, with the combined auxiliary-plus-LAS configuration being statistically significant on most metrics. The paper further reports that global uncertainty grows with prediction distance and correlates with error, and that BrLP selects fast-progressing patients for clinical trials almost as well as a dedicated regression model.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that five volumetric covariates (hippocampus, amygdala, lateral ventricles, cerebral cortex, and cerebral white matter) plus age, sex, and cognitive status are enough to summarize and drive disease progression, so that conditioning the latent diffusion model on these covariates can generate anatomically faithful future scans.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If BrLP is correct, forecasting a future brain MRI reduces to predicting five region volumes and conditioning a latent diffusion model on them, making individual trajectory simulation feasible on consumer-grade GPUs.
  • The Latent Average Stabilization scheme implies that prediction error decreases as the number of averaged latents $m$ grows, with statistically significant gains up to $m = 64$ at a linearly increasing memory cost.
  • The uncertainty estimates derived from LAS provide a per-voxel reliability map that tracks where the model expects to err, which could flag low-confidence regions in a predicted scan.
  • Because BrLP identifies fast-progressing patients about as well as a dedicated regression model, generated scans could serve as a proxy for hippocampal atrophy rate in clinical trial enrichment without waiting for follow-up visits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test that feeds the subject's true future volumes into the same latent diffusion model would separate the auxiliary forecaster's contribution from the generative model's fidelity; the paper does not report this ablation.
  • The method's design is not tied to Alzheimer's-specific covariates, so swapping the auxiliary model's region set could extend BrLP to other progressive diseases, such as multiple sclerosis or cardiac disease, without architectural changes.
  • The paper's reported smoothing effect suggests that part of BrLP's high SSIM may reflect conservative predictions close to the baseline; comparing against a no-change baseline on long follow-up intervals would test whether new structures are genuinely synthesized.
  • Because only five regions are conditioned, any clinically relevant pathology outside that set, such as white matter lesions visible in T1-weighted images, cannot be generated; augmenting $v$ with lesion load or additional biomarkers is a natural testable extension.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BrLP, a latent diffusion model combined with ControlNet and an auxiliary volumetric regression model for predicting individual-level future 3D T1w brain MRIs. The method conditions generation on subject metadata (age, sex, cognitive status) and five AD-related regional volumes, uses an auxiliary model (linear regression or Disease Course Mapping) to forecast those volumes at a target age, and introduces Latent Average Stabilization (LAS) to average multiple stochastic reverse-diffusion samples. The authors evaluate on internal (ADNI, OASIS-3, AIBL) and external (NACC) datasets against DaniNet, CounterSynth, and a re-implemented Latent-SADM, reporting lower MSE and higher SSIM, with ablations of LAS and a downstream clinical-trial enrichment simulation. The code is publicly released.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, BrLP is a meaningful advance in generative disease-progression modeling: it demonstrates a practical pipeline for conditioning latent diffusion on subject-specific covariates and prior volumetric forecasts, supported by a large-scale internal dataset, a held-out external dataset, ablations, statistical testing, and an uncertainty quantification mechanism. The public code and detailed dataset statements are strengths. However, the central evaluation is partly circular because the conditioned volumes used as inputs are also the primary volumetric outcomes, and the baseline comparison is under-specified; the AD-subgroup results also weaken the unqualified state-of-the-art claim. These issues require additional analysis before the individual-level progression claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2 and §5.4 (Tables 2–3); §4.1, §4.4] The primary volumetric outcomes in Tables 2 and 3 (hippocampus, amygdala, lateral ventricle MAE) are also the conditioning covariates v(B) fed into the LDM via the auxiliary model at inference (Section 4.4), and they are among the labels on which the LDM and ControlNet are trained (Section 4.1). Thus low errors on these regions largely reflect the auxiliary model's regression accuracy and the LDM's ability to render those volumes, not an independent predictive ability of the generative model. The two nominally unconditioned regions provide only partial evidence: CSF is anatomically correlated with the conditioned lateral ventricles, and Table 1 shows that the auxiliary model yields no measurable improvement for the thalamus (MAE 0.031 vs 0.031). I recommend adding an independent anatomical metric (e.g., cortical thickness in a region not among the five covariates, or a whole-brain morphometry measure) or an oracle-conditioning experiment to separate regression error from synthesis error, before the claim 'individual-level disease progression' is made for the full 3D brain MRI.
  2. [§5.4 and Appendix A] The state-of-the-art claim rests on an under-specified comparison. Latent-SADM is a re-implementation of SADM using an LDM, but the manuscript does not describe this re-implementation's architecture, training details, or hyperparameters, nor does it validate that it approximates the original SADM. Similarly, no details are given for how DaniNet and CounterSynth were adapted to the same preprocessing and evaluation pipeline (e.g., whether default hyperparameters were used, how outputs were resampled to the 1.5 mm MNI space, or whether they were trained on the same training folds). Without this information, the reported average MSE reductions of roughly 60% cannot be independently verified and may be inflated by configuration mismatches. Please provide a complete description or a supplementary table of the baseline setups and tuning.
  3. [§5.4, Tables 2 and 3, AD-only rows] In the AD-subject rows of both tables, the single-image CounterSynth baseline achieves significantly lower MAE than BrLP on the hippocampus and amygdala (internal: 0.024 vs 0.031 and 0.012 vs 0.021; external: 0.025 vs 0.036 and 0.012 vs 0.025). Yet the text in Section 5.4 states that 'our approach outperforms the baselines' without reporting this exception. Since AD is the principal clinical target, the paper should either discuss the reasons for this regional and subgroup inconsistency or restrict the state-of-the-art claim to the overall/averaged metrics and the CN/MCI subgroups where the advantage is consistent.
  4. [Table 1 and §4.4] The contribution of the generative model relative to the auxiliary regressor is never isolated. The ablation in Table 1 shows that adding the auxiliary model reduces conditioned-region MAE by an average of 23% and that LAS adds a further 4%, but no experiment feeds the ground-truth target volumes v(B) into the LDM (oracle conditioning) and compares the resulting volumetric MAE with the auxiliary model's own error on the same test subjects. Such an experiment would quantify how much of the reported accuracy is due to image synthesis versus the auxiliary model's regression. Without it, the reader cannot determine whether BrLP predicts disease progression better than the regression model or merely renders externally supplied volumes into an MRI-like image.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.3, Table 1] The 'Base + LAS' row does not specify the LAS hyperparameter m; since Base is defined with m=1, the reader cannot tell which m value was used for this configuration. Please state the m value in the table or text.
  2. [§5.4, Table 3] The caption of Table 3 says 'paired t-test' without mentioning Bonferroni correction, while the text in Section 5.4 states that Bonferroni correction is used. Align the caption with the text.
  3. [§4.6, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The notation z^(B)_i is used both for latent samples before decoding (Eq. 3) and for their decoded versions in the voxel-wise variance formula (Eq. 4); using different symbols (e.g., z_i and y_i) would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§4.5] The term 'spatiotemporal consistency' is used to motivate LAS, but the paper does not report a quantitative measure of temporal smoothness across successive predicted time points; consider adding such a metric (e.g., trajectory smoothness or inter-time-point change consistency) or softening the claim.
  5. [§5.4, paragraph after Tables 2–3] The sentence 'No notable differences appear between improvements in conditioned versus unconditioned regions' is contradicted by the AD-only rows in the same tables, where BrLP loses to CounterSynth on two conditioned regions; rephrase to acknowledge this variability across subgroups and regions.
  6. [Figure 2, panel (D)] The caption says 'Diagnosis at final visit,' but the text describes cognitive status (CN/MCI/AD); clarify how the diagnosis was defined for subjects with multiple visits and whether the final-visit cognitive status was used in all analyses.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Conditioned-region volumetric 'predictions' are inputs by construction, but image metrics and unconditioned regions keep the central claim partly independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 4.1, 4.4, 5.2 and 4.8 (inference and volumetric evaluation)]
    "i) predict the progression-related volumes v̂(B)=fψ(c(A)) using the auxiliary model; ii) concatenate this information with the subject-specific metadata s(B) to form the target covariates c(B)=⟨s(B),v̂(B)⟩. ... Volumetric metrics in AD-related regions (hippocampus, amygdala, lateral ventricles, CSF, and thalamus) evaluate the model’s accuracy in tracking disease progression. ... CSF and thalamus are excluded from progression-related covariates, enabling the analysis of unconditioned regions in our predictions."

    The three conditioned volumetric outcomes (hippocampus, amygdala, lateral ventricle) are exactly the progression-related covariates v that the auxiliary model predicts and that are then supplied to the LDM/ControlNet as conditioning c(B). Because the generated image is trained to conform to those target volumes, the MAE on these regions reduces, up to rendering fidelity, to the auxiliary model’s forecasting error: BrLP’s “prediction” of these volumes is the auxiliary model’s output by construction, not an independent prediction of the generative model. Moreover, the same SynthSeg 2.0 pipeline defines both the conditioning covariates and the outcome volumes, so the metric is evaluated in the exact representation that was conditioned.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical ML pipeline rather than a formal derivation, and most of the chain is self-contained: the LDM/ControlNet training (Eq. 1, Secs 4.1–4.2) uses paired baseline/follow-up latents and does not fit the target volumes from the test set; image-based MSE/SSIM compare full generated volumes against real follow-ups; the external NACC test set is held out; the LAS uncertainty analyses are empirical associations, not definitions. The only load-bearing circularity is in the conditioned-region volumetric evaluation: the three headline regional outcomes are the same quantities that the auxiliary model predicts and feeds to the LDM as conditioning, so those MAE numbers largely measure the auxiliary forecaster (plus SynthSeg rendering fidelity), not an independent disease-progression prediction by the generative model. The paper’s own inclusion of CSF/thalamus as unconditioned controls and the image metrics provide independent support for the central claim, which is why the score is partial (6), not 8–10. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-importation pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the domain assumption that a small set of volumetric covariates and demographic metadata can drive faithful whole-brain image synthesis. The network weights and DCM/regression coefficients are trained artifacts rather than derivation constants. No new physical entities or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • LAS averaging count m = 64
    Inference hyperparameter chosen by hand after a sweep over 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Larger m improves metrics but increases compute and memory linearly.
  • DDIM denoising steps = 25
    Selected for inference after an ablation over 2, 5, 10, 15, and 25 steps; the paper notes 5 steps already gives satisfactory quality.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Five volumetric covariates plus age, sex, and cognitive status are sufficient to describe disease progression for image generation.
    Invoked in Sections 4.1 and 4.4 to define the conditioning set; if important pathology is not captured by these covariates, the conditioning is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The latent autoencoder preserves clinically relevant morphology despite the known smoothing effect.
    The VAE is fine-tuned from the MONAI brain synthesis model; the smoothing limitation is acknowledged in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption Disease Course Mapping fitted per cognitive status gives valid individual future volume estimates from past visits.
    Used in Appendix A.2 to produce the auxiliary model's progression covariates; the paper uses the Leaspy implementation and treats DCM as a replaceable module.
  • domain assumption Averaging multiple stochastic denoising runs estimates the expected latent prediction and improves progression consistency.
    Stated in Section 4.5, Eq. 2; the assumption is that the stochastic predictions deviate from a theoretical mean and that averaging reduces noise.
  • domain assumption The cognitive status at the target age is available or assumed at inference time.
    Inference in Section 4.4 uses subject-specific metadata s(B) at age B, including cognitive status; the Discussion defers modeling of status transitions to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Brain Latent Progression: Individual-based Spatiotemporal Disease Progression on 3D Brain MRIs via Latent Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MP4ZS4EW

@misc{pith2026250208560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Brain Latent Progression: Individual-based Spatiotemporal Disease Progression on 3D Brain MRIs via Latent Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MP4ZS4EW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08560}
}
read the original abstract

The growing availability of longitudinal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) datasets has facilitated Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven modeling of disease progression, making it possible to predict future medical scans for individual patients. However, despite significant advancements in AI, current methods continue to face challenges including achieving patient-specific individualization, ensuring spatiotemporal consistency, efficiently utilizing longitudinal data, and managing the substantial memory demands of 3D scans. To address these challenges, we propose Brain Latent Progression (BrLP), a novel spatiotemporal model designed to predict individual-level disease progression in 3D brain MRIs. The key contributions in BrLP are fourfold: (i) it operates in a small latent space, mitigating the computational challenges posed by high-dimensional imaging data; (ii) it explicitly integrates subject metadata to enhance the individualization of predictions; (iii) it incorporates prior knowledge of disease dynamics through an auxiliary model, facilitating the integration of longitudinal data; and (iv) it introduces the Latent Average Stabilization (LAS) algorithm, which (a) enforces spatiotemporal consistency in the predicted progression at inference time and (b) allows us to derive a measure of the uncertainty for the prediction at the global and voxel level. We train and evaluate BrLP on 11,730 T1-weighted (T1w) brain MRIs from 2,805 subjects and validate its generalizability on an external test set comprising 2,257 MRIs from 962 subjects. Our experiments compare BrLP-generated MRI scans with real follow-up MRIs, demonstrating state-of-the-art accuracy compared to existing methods. The code is publicly available at: https://github.com/LemuelPuglisi/BrLP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08560 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of BrLP training and inference process. The training process outputs an autoencoder (A) that maps 3D brain MRIs into small latent representations; an LDM (B) able to generate latent representations according to subject-specific and progression-related covariates; a ControlNet (C), able to constrain the LDM’s generation process to a subject’s brain. During inference (E), progression-related variables at … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Demographic and diagnostic statistics of the internal and external datasets. Distributions include (A) age at baseline, (B) average time interval between the initial and follow-up visits, (C) sex distribution, and (D) diagnosis (CN, MCI, AD) at final visit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of varying the LAS parameter 𝑚 on different performance metrics and computation time. The plots show the trends for SSIM, MSE, MAE for different brain regions (hippocampus, amygdala, lateral ventricle, thalamus, and CSF) and computation time as 𝑚 increases from 1 to 64. Error bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals of the metric. Most metrics show improvements (higher SSIM, lower MSE and MAE) with increasi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison between the real progression of a 70 y.o. subject with MCI (from the internal test set) over 15 years and the predictions obtained by BrLP and the baseline methods. Each method shows a predicted MRI (left) and its deviation from the subject’s real brain MR…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) Difference in uncertainty (𝑦-axis) as a function of prediction distance (𝑥-axis) in years (divided by 100). (B) MSE (𝑦-axis) as a function of uncertainty (𝑥-axis). (C) SSIM (𝑦-axis) as a function of uncertainty (𝑥-axis). In all plots, colored lines represent trends…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Voxel-level uncertainty evaluated for predictions at different timesteps for a single subject. The first and second rows show the ground truth and predicted MRIs, respectively, at each timestep. The third row presents the uncertainty maps, with lighter colors indicatin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of patient selection methods for identifying fast progressors in clinical trials. The plot shows the efficacy (𝑦-axis) of three selection methods (Random, BrLP, and Regression) across various sample sizes (𝑥-axis) in both internal and external test sets. Eff…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of the number of DDIM inference steps on BrLP performance. SSIM (left axis, blue) and MSE (right axis, red) are reported for different numbers of denoising steps. Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals. C. Impact of reducing DDIM denoising steps on BrLP’…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning Patient-Specific Disease Dynamics with Latent Flow Matching for Longitudinal Imaging Generation

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Δ-LFM generates future brain MRIs by learning a patient-specific velocity field in a latent space where trajectory magnitude grows monotonically with disease time, outperforming prior models on three Alzheimer's datasets.

  2. Temporally-Aware Diffusion Model for Brain Progression Modelling with Bidirectional Temporal Regularisation

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TADM-3D predicts future brain MRIs from a baseline scan and time gap by diffusing the scan-to-scan residual, with brain-age regularization and bidirectional training, and reports gains over prior 3D baselines.

  3. Predicting Brain Morphogenesis via Physics-Transfer Learning

    q-bio.NC 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A physics-transfer graph network trained on simulated growth of simple elastic shells predicts curvature and short-term shape change on a fetal brain atlas, but validation is limited to a single population-averaged atlas.

  4. Neural Autoregressive Modeling of Brain Aging

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NeuroAR, an age-conditioned autoregressive transformer on multi-scale VQVAE tokens, synthesizes future brain MRIs from a previous scan and reports higher PSNR/SSIM than LDM and latent StarGAN on ADNI, PPMI, and ABCD.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    , author Ramos, E.M

    author Beekly, D.L. , author Ramos, E.M. , author Lee, W.W. , author Deitrich, W.D. , author Jacka, M.E. , author Wu, J. , author Hubbard, J.L. , author Koepsell, T.D. , author Morris, J.C. , author Kukull, W.A. , et al., year 2007 . title The national alzheimer's coordinating center (nacc) database: the uniform data set . journal Alzheimer Disease & Asso...

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    , author Greve, D.N

    author Billot, B. , author Greve, D.N. , author Puonti, O. , author Thielscher, A. , author Van Leemput, K. , author Fischl, B. , author Dalca, A.V. , author Iglesias, J.E. , et al., year 2023 . title Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining . journal Medical image analysis volume 86 , pages 102789

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    , author de Jong, J

    author Birkenbihl, C. , author de Jong, J. , author Yalchyk, I. , author Fr \"o hlich, H. , year 2024 . title Deep learning-based patient stratification for prognostic enrichment of clinical dementia trials . journal Brain Communications volume 6 , pages fcae445

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    , author Tanno, R

    author Blumberg, S.B. , author Tanno, R. , author Kokkinos, I. , author Alexander, D.C. , year 2018 . title Deeper image quality transfer: Training low-memory neural networks for 3d images , in: booktitle Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceedin...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    , author Li, W

    author Cardoso, M.J. , author Li, W. , author Brown, R. , author Ma, N. , author Kerfoot, E. , author Wang, Y. , author Murrey, B. , author Myronenko, A. , author Zhao, C. , author Yang, D. , et al., year 2022 . title Monai: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    , author Huijben, E.M

    author Chadebec, C. , author Huijben, E.M. , author Pluim, J.P. , author Allassonni \`e re, S. , author van Eijnatten, M.A. , year 2022 . title An image feature mapping model for continuous longitudinal data completion and generation of synthetic patient trajectories , in: booktitle MICCAI Workshop on Deep Generative Models , organization Springer . pp. p...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    , author Durrleman, S

    author Cury, C. , author Durrleman, S. , author Cash, D.M. , author Lorenzi, M. , author Nicholas, J.M. , author Bocchetta, M. , author Van Swieten, J.C. , author Borroni, B. , author Galimberti, D. , author Masellis, M. , et al., year 2019 . title Spatiotemporal analysis for detection of pre-symptomatic shape changes in neurodegenerative diseases: Initia...

    work page 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    , author Bush, A.I

    author Ellis, K.A. , author Bush, A.I. , author Darby, D. , author De Fazio, D. , author Foster, J. , author Hudson, P. , author Lautenschlager, N.T. , author Lenzo, N. , author Martins, R.N. , author Maruff, P. , et al., year 2009 . title The australian imaging, biomarkers an...

    2009

  2. [10]

    , author Young, A.L

    author Eshaghi, A. , author Young, A.L. , author Wijeratne, P.A. , author Prados, F. , author Arnold, D.L. , author Narayanan, S. , author Guttmann, C.R. , author Barkhof, F. , author Alexander, D.C. , author Thompson, A.J. , et al., year 2021 . title Identifying multiple scle...

    2021

  3. [11]

    , author Primativo, S

    author Firth, N.C. , author Primativo, S. , author Marinescu, R.V. , author Shakespeare, T.J. , author Suarez-Gonzalez, A. , author Lehmann, M. , author Carton, A. , author Ocal, D. , author Pavisic, I. , author Paterson, R.W. , et al., year 2019 . title Longitudinal neuroanat...

    2019

  4. [12]

    , author Pouget-Abadie, J

    author Goodfellow, I. , author Pouget-Abadie, J. , author Mirza, M. , author Xu, B. , author Warde-Farley, D. , author Ozair, S. , author Courville, A. , author Bengio, Y. , year 2020 . title Generative adversarial networks . journal Communications of the ACM volume 63 , pages...

    2020

  5. [13]

    , author Ang, G

    author He, R. , author Ang, G. , author Tward, D. , year 2024 . title Individualized multi-horizon mri trajectory prediction for alzheimer's disease . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02018

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    , author Jain, A

    author Ho, J. , author Jain, A. , author Abbeel, P. , year 2020 . title Denoising diffusion probabilistic models . journal Advances in neural information processing systems volume 33 , pages 6840--6851

    2020

  7. [15]

    , author Mora, J.S

    author Hoopes, A. , author Mora, J.S. , author Dalca, A.V. , author Fischl, B. , author Hoffmann, M. , year 2022 . title Synthstrip: Skull-stripping for any brain image . journal NeuroImage volume 260 , pages 119474

    2022

  8. [16]

    , author Luna, M

    author Jung, E. , author Luna, M. , author Park, S.H. , year 2021 . title Conditional gan with an attention-based generator and a 3d discriminator for 3d medical image generation , in: booktitle Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2021: 24th Inte...

    2021

  9. [17]

    , author Ye, J.C

    author Kim, B. , author Ye, J.C. , year 2022 . title Diffusion deformable model for 4d temporal medical image generation , in: booktitle International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , organization Springer . pp. pages 539--548

    2022

  10. [18]

    , year 2013

    author Kingma, D.P. , year 2013 . title Auto-encoding variational bayes . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    , author B \^o ne, A

    author Koval, I. , author B \^o ne, A. , author Louis, M. , author Lartigue, T. , author Bottani, S. , author Marcoux, A. , author Samper-Gonzalez, J. , author Burgos, N. , author Charlier, B. , author Bertrand, A. , et al., year 2021 . title AD course map charts alzheimer’s d...

    2021

  12. [20]

    , author Benzinger, T.L

    author LaMontagne, P.J. , author Benzinger, T.L. , author Morris, J.C. , author Keefe, S. , author Hornbeck, R. , author Xiong, C. , author Grant, E. , author Hassenstab, J. , author Moulder, K. , author Vlassenko, A.G. , et al., year 2019 . title Oasis-3: longitudinal neuroim...

    2019

  13. [21]

    , author Guarnera, F

    author Litrico, M. , author Guarnera, F. , author Giuffrida, M.V. , author Rav \` , D. , author Battiato, S. , year 2024 . title Tadm: Temporally-aware diffusion model for neurodegenerative progression on brain mri , in: booktitle International Conference on Medical Image Comp...

    2024

  14. [22]

    , author Puglisi, L

    author McMaster, E. , author Puglisi, L. , author Gao, C. , author Krishnan, A.R. , author Saunders, A.M. , author Ravi, D. , author Beason-Held, L.L. , author Resnick, S.M. , author Zuo, L. , author Moyer, D. , et al., year 2025 . title A technical assessment of latent diffus...

    2025

  15. [23]

    , author Alexander, D.C

    author Oxtoby, N.P. , author Alexander, D.C. , year 2017 . title Imaging plus x: multimodal models of neurodegenerative disease . journal Current opinion in neurology volume 30 , pages 371

    2017

  16. [24]

    , author Nalisnick, E

    author Papamakarios, G. , author Nalisnick, E. , author Rezende, D.J. , author Mohamed, S. , author Lakshminarayanan, B. , year 2021 . title Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference . journal Journal of Machine Learning Research volume 22 , pages 1--64

    2021

  17. [25]

    , author Aisen, P.S

    author Petersen, R.C. , author Aisen, P.S. , author Beckett, L.A. , author Donohue, M.C. , author Gamst, A.C. , author Harvey, D.J. , author Jack, C.R. , author Jagust, W.J. , author Shaw, L.M. , author Toga, A.W. , et al., year 2010 . title Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging in...

    2010

  18. [26]

    , author Graham, M.S

    author Pinaya, W.H. , author Graham, M.S. , author Kerfoot, E. , author Tudosiu, P.D. , author Dafflon, J. , author Fernandez, V. , author Sanchez, P. , author Wolleb, J. , author da Costa, P.F. , author Patel, A. , et al., year 2023 . title Generative ai for medical imaging: ...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    , author Tudosiu, P.D

    author Pinaya, W.H. , author Tudosiu, P.D. , author Dafflon, J. , author Da Costa, P.F. , author Fernandez, V. , author Nachev, P. , author Ourselin, S. , author Cardoso, M.J. , year 2022 . title Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models , in: booktitle MICCAI Work...

    2022

  20. [28]

    , author Pievani, M

    author Pini, L. , author Pievani, M. , author Bocchetta, M. , author Altomare, D. , author Bosco, P. , author Cavedo, E. , author Galluzzi, S. , author Marizzoni, M. , author Frisoni, G.B. , year 2016 . title Brain atrophy in alzheimer’s disease and aging . journal Ageing rese...

    2016

  21. [29]

    , author Gray, R

    author Pombo, G. , author Gray, R. , author Cardoso, M.J. , author Ourselin, S. , author Rees, G. , author Ashburner, J. , author Nachev, P. , year 2023 . title Equitable modelling of brain imaging by counterfactual augmentation with morphologically constrained 3d deep generat...

    2023

  22. [30]

    , author Alexander, D.C

    author Puglisi, L. , author Alexander, D.C. , author Rav \` , D. , year 2024 . title Enhancing spatiotemporal disease progression models via latent diffusion and prior knowledge , in: booktitle International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervent...

    2024

  23. [31]

    , author Blumberg, S.B

    author Ravi, D. , author Blumberg, S.B. , author Ingala, S. , author Barkhof, F. , author Alexander, D.C. , author Oxtoby, N.P. , author Initiative, A.D.N. , et al., year 2022 . title Degenerative adversarial neuroimage nets for brain scan simulations: Application in ageing an...

    2022

  24. [32]

    , year 2024

    author Rivera, M. , year 2024 . title How to train your vae , in: booktitle 2024 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , organization IEEE . pp. pages 3882--3888

    2024

  25. [33]

    , author Blattmann, A

    author Rombach, R. , author Blattmann, A. , author Lorenz, D. , author Esser, P. , author Ommer, B. , year 2022 . title High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models , in: booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognitio...

    2022

  26. [34]

    , author Durrleman, S

    author Sauty, B. , author Durrleman, S. , year 2022 a. title Progression models for imaging data with longitudinal variational auto encoders , in: booktitle International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , organization Springer . pp. pages 3--13

    2022

  27. [35]

    , author Durrleman, S

    author Sauty, B. , author Durrleman, S. , year 2022 b. title Riemannian metric learning for progression modeling of longitudinal datasets , in: booktitle 2022 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) , organization IEEE . pp. pages 1--5

    2022

  28. [36]

    , author Allassonniere, S

    author Schiratti, J.B. , author Allassonniere, S. , author Colliot, O. , author Durrleman, S. , year 2015 . title Learning spatiotemporal trajectories from manifold-valued longitudinal data . journal Advances in neural information processing systems volume 28

    2015

  29. [37]

    , author Allassonni \`e re, S

    author Schiratti, J.B. , author Allassonni \`e re, S. , author Colliot, O. , author Durrleman, S. , year 2017 . title A bayesian mixed-effects model to learn trajectories of changes from repeated manifold-valued observations . journal The Journal of Machine Learning Research v...

    2017

  30. [38]

    , author Sweeney, E.M

    author Shinohara, R.T. , author Sweeney, E.M. , author Goldsmith, J. , author Shiee, N. , author Mateen, F.J. , author Calabresi, P.A. , author Jarso, S. , author Pham, D.L. , author Reich, D.S. , author Crainiceanu, C.M. , et al., year 2014 . title Statistical normalization t...

    2014

  31. [39]

    , author Meng, C

    author Song, J. , author Meng, C. , author Ermon, S. , year 2021 . title Denoising diffusion implicit models , in: booktitle International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  32. [40]

    , author Vromen, E.M

    author Tijms, B.M. , author Vromen, E.M. , author Mjaavatten, O. , author Holstege, H. , author Reus, L.M. , author van der Lee, S. , author Wesenhagen, K.E. , author Lorenzini, L. , author Vermunt, L. , author Venkatraghavan, V. , et al., year 2024 . title Cerebrospinal fluid...

    2024

  33. [41]

    , author Avants, B.B

    author Tustison, N.J. , author Avants, B.B. , author Cook, P.A. , author Zheng, Y. , author Egan, A. , author Yushkevich, P.A. , author Gee, J.C. , year 2010 . title N4itk: improved n3 bias correction . journal IEEE transactions on medical imaging volume 29 , pages 1310--1320

    2010

  34. [42]

    , author Young, A.L

    author Vogel, J.W. , author Young, A.L. , author Oxtoby, N.P. , author Smith, R. , author Ossenkoppele, R. , author Strandberg, O.T. , author La Joie, R. , author Aksman, L.M. , author Grothe, M.J. , author Iturria-Medina, Y. , et al., year 2021 . title Four distinct trajector...

    2021

  35. [43]

    , author Tachimori, H

    author Wang, C. , author Tachimori, H. , author Yamaguchi, H. , author Sekiguchi, A. , author Li, Y. , author Yamashita, Y. , author Initiative, A.D.N. , year 2024 . title A multimodal deep learning approach for the prediction of cognitive decline and its effectiveness in clin...

    2024

  36. [44]

    , author Bannister, J.J

    author Wilms, M. , author Bannister, J.J. , author Mouches, P. , author MacDonald, M.E. , author Rajashekar, D. , author Langner, S. , author Forkert, N.D. , year 2022 . title Invertible modeling of bidirectional relationships in neuroimaging with normalizing flows: applicatio...

    2022

  37. [45]

    , author Chartsias, A

    author Xia, T. , author Chartsias, A. , author Wang, C. , author Tsaftaris, S.A. , author Initiative, A.D.N. , et al., year 2021 . title Learning to synthesise the ageing brain without longitudinal data . journal Medical Image Analysis volume 73 , pages 102169

    2021

  38. [46]

    , author Zhang, C

    author Yoon, J.S. , author Zhang, C. , author Suk, H.I. , author Guo, J. , author Li, X. , year 2023 . title Sadm: Sequence-aware diffusion model for longitudinal medical image generation , in: booktitle International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging , o...

    2023

  39. [47]

    , author Marinescu, R.V

    author Young, A.L. , author Marinescu, R.V. , author Oxtoby, N.P. , author Bocchetta, M. , author Yong, K. , author Firth, N.C. , author Cash, D.M. , author Thomas, D.L. , author Dick, K.M. , author Cardoso, J. , et al., year 2018 . title Uncovering the heterogeneity and tempo...

    2018

  40. [48]

    , author Oxtoby, N.P

    author Young, A.L. , author Oxtoby, N.P. , author Garbarino, S. , author Fox, N.C. , author Barkhof, F. , author Schott, J.M. , author Alexander, D.C. , year 2024 . title Data-driven modelling of neurodegenerative disease progression: thinking outside the black box . journal N...

    2024

  41. [49]

    , author Rao, A

    author Zhang, L. , author Rao, A. , author Agrawala, M. , year 2023 . title Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models , in: booktitle Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. pages 3836--3847

    2023

  42. [50]

    , author Chen, T

    author Zhou, Y. , author Chen, T. , author Hou, J. , author Xie, H. , author Dvornek, N.C. , author Zhou, S.K. , author Wilson, D.L. , author Duncan, J.S. , author Liu, C. , author Zhou, B. , year 2024 . title Cascaded multi-path shortcut diffusion model for medical image tran...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.