Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

BrainNormalizer: Anatomy-Informed Pseudo-Healthy Brain Reconstruction from Tumor MRI via Edge-Guided ControlNet

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper tries to establish that a tumorous brain MRI can be converted into a subject-specific healthy-looking reference without paired pre-tumor scans, by guiding diffusion inpainting with the patient's mirrored contralateral edge map and

desk verdict BrainNormalizer combines ControlNet edge conditioning with mirrored contralateral edge maps for pseudo-healthy brain MRI reconstruction; the combination is new, but the main structural metric is aligned with the method's own symmetry prior, so the reported gains may reflect symmetry enforcement rather than accurate counterfactual reconstruction. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.12853 v2 pith:FITWIHLO submitted 2025-11-17 eess.IV cs.CV

Min Gu Kwak , Yeonju Lee , Hairong Wang , Kristin R. Swanson , Jing Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords pseudo-healthybrainMRIdiffusioninpaintingedge-guidedconditioningcontralateralsymmetrycounterfactualmedicalimagingtumorremovalreconstruction
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

BrainNormalizer tries to establish that subject-specific pseudo-healthy brain MRIs can be reconstructed directly from tumorous scans, with no paired pre-tumor images and no healthy reference used in training. The core move is to keep the diffusion model's inpainting objective but feed it deliberately mismatched guidance at inference: a healthy text prompt and an edge map mirrored from the patient's healthy hemisphere. If correct, this gives clinicians a per-patient counterfactual baseline for planning surgery and studying tumor-induced deformation, something that does not exist in practice today. On a public brain-tumor MRI dataset, the reconstructed images score a perceptual distribution distance of 27.1, a structural similarity of 0.76 against the mirrored healthy side, and a 7.1 percent false-positive rate from a downstream tumor detector, all better than the compared baselines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the mirrored contralateral edge map combined with the deliberate misalignment of inputs. An edge detector extracts structural boundaries from the patient's own MRI; mirroring the hemisphere opposite the tumor supplies a structural template for the missing healthy tissue, while a text prompt describing a healthy brain steers semantic interpretation. A trainable control branch attached to the frozen diffusion decoder via zero-initialized convolutions injects those edges, so generation follows stable anatomical contours instead of unconstrained inpainting. This lets the model use the patient's own anatomy as the reference, which is what makes the reconstruction sub

What would settle it

Take healthy brain MRIs, digitally insert realistic tumors with surrounding edema and deformation, run the pipeline, and compare each reconstruction against the original healthy image; if the reconstruction error is no better than simply copying the mirrored healthy hemisphere, the contralateral edge prior is not carrying the claimed benefit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a tumor region can be inpainted into healthy-looking tissue that preserves the subject's own anatomy by conditioning generation on boundary contours taken from the patient's contralateral hemisphere. The model is built in two stages: first, a pretrained latent diffusion model is fine-tuned on MRI slices to reconstruct masked regions from surrounding context, using text prompts that describe either healthy or tumorous scans; second, a separately trainable control branch learns to inject edge maps into the frozen decoder through zero-initialized convolutions. At inference the paper pairs a tumorous slice with a non-tumorous prompt and a mirrored edge map, a deliberate

Load-bearing premise

The mirrored contralateral edge map must be a valid structural template for the missing non-tumorous tissue; as the paper itself notes in its limitations, this breaks down for tumors in large central regions or affecting both hemispheres, or when mass effect deforms the opposite side.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One scan becomes a source of a personalized healthy-reference image, removing the need for historically unavailable pre-tumor MRI.
  • Generated pseudo-healthy images can serve as counterfactual pairs with the tumor scan for studying displacement and infiltration, once clinically validated.
  • Rough tumor masks are enough: expanded masks produce similar reconstructions, which lowers the annotation burden in practice.
  • A downstream tumor detector marks only 7.1 percent of reconstructions as tumorous, indicating that tumor-specific signal is largely removed while surrounding tissue is preserved.
  • The method's clinical value is bounded to mostly unilateral tumors; the paper itself notes degradation for large central or bilateral tumors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported structural similarity compares the reconstructed region to the mirrored healthy side, so it rewards symmetry; the method may favor over-smoothed or symmetric-looking tissue in naturally asymmetric brain areas.
  • A direct validation would use healthy MRIs with digitally inserted tumors and known deformations, then measure reconstruction error against the original scan—something the unpaired-data setting cannot provide.
  • Because the reference is the patient's own anatomy, the same pipeline could be reused at multiple time points to track how deformation progresses, an extension the paper does not test.
  • The mirrored-edge prior is trustworthy mainly for unilateral tumors; for midline or bilateral disease, the model may hallucinate rather than recover structure, so clinical deployment should be limited until tested on such cases.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. BrainNormalizer proposes a two-stage diffusion framework for pseudo-healthy brain MRI reconstruction from tumorous scans without paired pre-tumor data. The first stage fine-tunes Stable Diffusion v1.5 with an inpainting objective on tumorous and non-tumorous BraTS2020 slices; the second stage trains a ControlNet branch on Canny edge maps. At inference, the model receives the tumorous masked slice, a non-tumorous text prompt, and a mirrored contralateral edge map, deliberately misaligning the input to induce counterfactual healthy generation. The paper reports FID=27.1, SSIM=0.76, and FP rate=7.1% on a 35-subject test set (Table 3), claiming improved realism, structural consistency, and clinical plausibility over a DDIM baseline (Wolleb et al.) and a first-stage-only inpainting baseline.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the method would be valuable: it addresses a real clinical need for subject-specific pseudo-healthy references, uses only public data, and explicitly avoids paired data requirements. The combination of inpainting fine-tuning and ControlNet edge conditioning is sensible, and the paper honestly states limitations in Section 5, including failure on large central and bilateral tumors. However, the current evidence does not separate 'enforcing symmetry' from 'recovering true subject-specific anatomy.' The SSIM metric is computed against the same contralateral structure that is used as the inference condition, so the reported structural-consistency gains are partly circular. FID and FP rate check aggregate realism and tumor-signal removal, not anatomical correctness. Without an independent validation protocol—e.g., synthetic paired data or external anatomical metrics—the 'subject-specific' and 'anatomically consistent' claims are not adequately supported. The contribution is promising but needs substantially stronger evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 (SSIM protocol; Table 3)] The SSIM metric is circular with the inference design. Section 4.3 states SSIM is computed between the inpainted region and the contralateral non-tumorous region, while Section 3.4 conditions generation on a mirrored contralateral edge map. A model that copies the contralateral anatomy will be rewarded by this metric by construction, even if the tumor has displaced or effaced the true midline anatomy. Thus the SSIM improvement over baselines does not establish that the reconstruction matches the subject's missing pre-tumor anatomy. Please add an independent validation, e.g., take healthy slices from non-tumor subjects, artificially simulate tumorous inputs by masking and/or deforming them, and compare reconstructions against the known healthy slice. Report SSIM or PSNR against that ground truth, with confidence intervals.
  2. [§3.4 and §5 (mirrored-contralateral assumption)] The load-bearing premise of the method is that the mirrored contralateral edge map is a valid structural template for the tumor-affected region. Section 5 concedes the scheme fails for large central or bilateral tumors, but even unilateral tumors with mass effect deform the contralateral hemisphere, and the paper itself cites evidence (ref. [48]) that healthy brains are not perfectly symmetric. This is not a minor edge case; it directly affects the central claim. The manuscript should quantify when the assumption is violated: stratify Table 3 by tumor location, size, and midline shift, and show failures. Without this stratification, the reported averages mix regimes where the conditioning is informative with regimes where it is misleading.
  3. [§4.4 (Table 3 statistics)] The quantitative results are point estimates with no error bars, significance tests, or multiple-seed variance. The differences—SSIM 0.76 vs. 0.68 and FP 7.1% vs. 10.4%—may be within stochastic variation, especially on a test set of 35 subjects. Please report per-subject or bootstrap confidence intervals, the number of seeds, and the exact test-set size for each metric. Also specify the FID feature extractor and whether it was adapted to MRI; features from ImageNet-trained Inception networks may not capture clinically relevant anatomical fidelity.
  4. [§4.3 (experimental design / ablations)] The comparison isolates the effect of adding inpainting and the effect of adding ControlNet, but it does not isolate the deliberate misalignment strategy. To attribute the gains to mirrored contralateral conditioning, the authors should include controls at inference: (i) same model with a non-mirrored edge map, (ii) same model with the mirrored edge map but a tumorous prompt, and (iii) same model with no edge map. The current design cannot distinguish the contribution of the mirrored edge condition from generic inpainting or the text prompt. Additionally, Wolleb et al. [28] is a non-inpainting method; comparing against it conflates task formulation with model quality.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2 (training data construction)] For non-tumorous slices, masks are 'randomly borrowed from a tumorous slice with the same slice index.' Please clarify whether this is from the same subject or a different subject, and discuss whether this artificial pairing biases the learned inpaint distribution. The assumption that this pairing provides valid training targets is plausible but currently unexamined.
  2. [§3.2 / §4.1 (tumor size categories)] The tumor size categories in Table 2 (small, mild, medium, moderate, large) are given approximate pixel counts, while Section 4.1 states slices with 1,000–3,000 tumor pixels are used. The mapping between the categorical prompts and the numerical range is unclear. Please define the bins explicitly.
  3. [Figures 1–4] The figure descriptions contain repeated placeholder/watermark text ('274+ Thousand Frozen Icon...') that should be removed. Figures should be cleaned before submission.
  4. [Abstract and §5] The Abstract appears twice in the manuscript (once at the top and again in the full text), and the conclusion states 'clinically reliable anatomical references' even though no clinical validation was performed. Please soften the claim or add a clear caveat that clinical utility has not yet been assessed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The SSIM structural-consistency result is partially circular: the inference condition and the evaluation metric are both derived from the same mirrored contralateral hemisphere, so the reported 0.76 SSIM rewards the symmetry assumption the method itself injects; FID and FP provide partial independent evidence.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4 (Inference) and Section 4.3 (Evaluation Protocol), Table 3]
    "A mirrored edge map cmirrored is generated by mirroring the contralateral hemisphere, serving as a structural reference for the missing non-tumorous region. ... Given the absence of paired non-tumorous MRIs, SSIM was computed between the inpainted region and its contralateral non-tumorous region within each slice, serving as a proxy for evaluating structural symmetry preservation."

    The same contralateral anatomy is used twice: once as the conditioning signal the model is told to follow (mirrored edge map) and once as the reference against which reconstruction quality is scored (SSIM to the contralateral non-tumorous region). A model that simply enforces left-right symmetry will score high on this metric regardless of whether it recovers the patient's true pre-tumor anatomy, so the SSIM claim is partly forced by construction. FID and FP rate do not share this construction, so the circularity is limited to the symmetry-based structural-consistency evidence.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found. The central methodological chain—two-stage SD/ControlNet training with inpainting losses, then inference with a non-tumorous prompt and mirrored edge map—does not fit a parameter to the evaluation target in a statistical sense. However, one headline quantitative claim is partly self-referential: the strongest structural-fidelity metric (SSIM 0.76 vs 0.68) is computed against the same contralateral non-tumorous region from which the inference-time cmirrored is generated. The paper's own Sections 3.4 and 4.3 make this explicit. The Section 5 limitation for large/central/bilateral tumors further concedes that the contralateral template is not universally valid. FID and FP rate are external enough to prevent a score of 8+, but they do not establish the subject-specific counterfactual accuracy that the SSIM section is used to support. Overall: one partial circularity in the structural-consistency evaluation; the broader framework retains independent content.

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

The central method rests on a set of hand-chosen design decisions and domain assumptions rather than a mathematical derivation: mirrored contralateral symmetry, Canny edges as stable anatomical priors, transfer from natural-image Stable Diffusion, and synthetic non-tumorous training pairs made by borrowing tumor masks. These are reasonable for the task but are not independently validated, and the evaluation shares one of them (contralateral symmetry).

free parameters (5)
  • Canny edge thresholds and Gaussian sigma = lower=30, upper=80, kernel 5x5, sigma=1.0
    Hand-chosen; determines which anatomical boundaries are used as ControlNet conditioning and therefore reconstruction geometry (Section 4.1).
  • Tumor size category thresholds = 1,000-3,000 pixels; bins small/mild/medium/moderate/large
    Manually set in Section 3.2 to define text prompts and to classify slices as tumorous; affects training distribution and prompt semantics.
  • Mask dilation = 5 pixels
    Dilation of ground-truth tumor mask to define inpainting region (Section 3.2); affects how much peritumoral tissue is regenerated.
  • Slice range = axial slices 80-130
    Manual choice of central brain region (Section 4.1); excludes tumors outside this range, limiting generalizability to the claimed clinical scope.
  • Training hyperparameters = LR 5e-5 (SD), 5e-4 (ControlNet); 30/20 epochs; batch 8x4; AdamW
    Chosen without reported tuning or sensitivity analysis; affect final generation quality.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Contralateral hemispheric symmetry provides a valid structural prior for reconstructing tumor-affected regions.
    Inference uses mirrored contralateral edge maps as guidance (Section 3.4); paper acknowledges failure for large central/bilateral tumors (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Canny edge maps computed on tumorous MRIs capture stable anatomical boundaries that remain valid after mirroring and are not dominated by tumor edges.
    Edge maps are used as conditioning (Sections 3.3, 3.4); no analysis quantifies how tumor edges distort the mirrored conditioning.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion v1.5, pretrained on natural images, can be domain-adapted to single-channel T1CE MRI by fine-tuning the U-Net with masked reconstruction.
    Foundational to the two-stage training (Section 3.2); no comparison to training from scratch or using a medical-image pretrained backbone.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-tumorous slices paired with randomly borrowed tumor masks at the same slice index provide valid training targets for pseudo-healthy inpainting.
    Section 3.2 says masks were 'randomly borrowed from a tumorous slice with the same slice index'; this creates synthetic training pairs whose anatomical validity is unverified.
  • domain assumption A pretrained BraTS tumor segmentation model's classification is a valid and unbiased proxy for clinical realism.
    FP rate is used as a clinical plausibility metric (Section 4.3); the detector's sensitivity to artifacts is not characterized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BrainNormalizer: Anatomy-Informed Pseudo-Healthy Brain Reconstruction from Tumor MRI via Edge-Guided ControlNet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FITWIHLO

@misc{pith2026251112853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BrainNormalizer: Anatomy-Informed Pseudo-Healthy Brain Reconstruction from Tumor MRI via Edge-Guided ControlNet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FITWIHLO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.12853}
}
read the original abstract

Brain tumors induce complex structural deformations that obscure the patient' s original neuroanatomy, making it difficult to distinguish tumor-induced changes from inherent anatomical variability. Reconstructing a subject-specific pseudo-healthy brain can provide a critical reference for such analysis, but this task is inherently counterfactual, as paired pre-tumor scans and explicit healthy guidance are unavailable. We propose BrainNormalizer, a diffusion-based framework for subject-specific pseudo-healthy brain MRI reconstruction that enables anatomy-informed reconstruction without requiring paired data or explicit healthy references. The framework learns anatomical priors and edge-based structural conditioning through a two-stage training strategy consisting of inpainting-based diffusion fine-tuning and ControlNet-based edge conditioning. At inference, counterfactual pseudo-healthy reconstruction is achieved through a deliberate misalignment strategy, where tumorous inputs are paired with non-tumorous prompts and mirrored contralateral edge maps. This allows subject-specific anatomical guidance to be constructed from the patient's own anatomy, enabling anatomically consistent pseudo-healthy reconstruction that preserves individual structural characteristics. Experiments on the BraTS2020 dataset demonstrate that BrainNormalizer achieves improved distributional realism, symmetry-based structural consistency, and reduced false positive detection compared to existing methods. These results indicate that the proposed framework provides a principled approach for subject-specific counterfactual reconstruction and supports downstream analysis of tumor-induced deformation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.12853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of BrainNormalizer based on the ControlNet framework. (a) Stable Diffusion (SD) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Step 1: Fine-tuning Stable Diffusion (SD). Both non-tumorous and tumorous MRI slices are provided as input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Step 2: ControlNet training for edge-guided anatomical reconstruction. ControlNet is built upon the fine-tuned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Step 3: Inference stage of BrainNormalizer. A deliberate misalignment strategy between tumorous inputs and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of pseudo-healthy brain reconstruction results for three representative subjects. Each pair of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of mask-size robustness in pseudo-healthy brain reconstruction. Each pair of rows corresponds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [48]

    Mapping cortical brain asymmetry in 17,141 healthy individuals worldwide via the enigma consortium.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(22):E5154–E5163, 2018

    Xiang-Zhen Kong, Samuel R Mathias, Tulio Guadalupe, ENIGMA Laterality Working Group, David C Glahn, Barbara Franke, Fabrice Crivello, Nathalie Tzourio-Mazoyer, Simon E Fisher, Paul M Thompson, et al. Mapping cortical brain asymmetry in 17,141 healthy individuals worldwide via the enigma consortium.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(22):E...

    2018

  2. [28]

    Diffusion models for medical anomaly detection

    Julia Wolleb, Florentin Bieder, Robin Sandkühler, and Philippe C Cattin. Diffusion models for medical anomaly detection. InInternational Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 35–45. Springer, 2022

    2022

  3. [1]

    Glioblastoma and other primary brain malignancies in adults: a review

    Lauren R Schaff and Ingo K Mellinghoff. Glioblastoma and other primary brain malignancies in adults: a review. Jama, 329(7):574–587, 2023

    2023

  4. [2]

    Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma.New England journal of medicine, 352(10):987–996, 2005

    Roger Stupp, Warren P Mason, Martin J Van Den Bent, Michael Weller, Barbara Fisher, Martin JB Taphoorn, Karl Belanger, Alba A Brandes, Christine Marosi, Ulrich Bogdahn, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma.New England journal of medicine, 352(10):987–996, 2005

    2005

  5. [3]

    Cbtrus statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2015–2019.Neuro-oncology, 24(Supplement_5):v1–v95, 2022

    Quinn T Ostrom, Mackenzie Price, Corey Neff, Gino Cioffi, Kristin A Waite, Carol Kruchko, and Jill S Barnholtz- Sloan. Cbtrus statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2015–2019.Neuro-oncology, 24(Supplement_5):v1–v95, 2022

    2015

  6. [4]

    Artificial intelligence in brain tumor imaging: a step toward personalized medicine.Current Oncology, 30(3):2673–2701, 2023

    Maurizio Cè, Giovanni Irmici, Chiara Foschini, Giulia Maria Danesini, Lydia Viviana Falsitta, Maria Lina Serio, Andrea Fontana, Carlo Martinenghi, Giancarlo Oliva, and Michaela Cellina. Artificial intelligence in brain tumor imaging: a step toward personalized medicine.Current Oncology, 30(3):2673–2701, 2023

    2023

  7. [5]

    Functional and structural reorganiza- tion in brain tumors: a machine learning approach using desynchronized functional oscillations.Communications Biology, 7(1):419, 2024

    Joan Falcó-Roget, Alberto Cacciola, Fabio Sambataro, and Alessandro Crimi. Functional and structural reorganiza- tion in brain tumors: a machine learning approach using desynchronized functional oscillations.Communications Biology, 7(1):419, 2024

    2024

  8. [6]

    Radiomics and radiogenomics in gliomas: a contemporary update.British journal of cancer, 125(5):641–657, 2021

    Gagandeep Singh, Sunil Manjila, Nicole Sakla, Alan True, Amr H Wardeh, Niha Beig, Anatoliy Vaysberg, John Matthews, Prateek Prasanna, and Vadim Spektor. Radiomics and radiogenomics in gliomas: a contemporary update.British journal of cancer, 125(5):641–657, 2021

    2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    Modern brain tumor imaging.Brain tumor research and treatment, 3(1):8, 2015

    Marc C Mabray, Ramon F Barajas Jr, and Soonmee Cha. Modern brain tumor imaging.Brain tumor research and treatment, 3(1):8, 2015

    2015

  2. [8]

    Multimodality brain tumor imaging: Mr imaging, pet, and pet/mr imaging.Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 56(10):1554–1561, 2015

    James R Fink, Mark Muzi, Melinda Peck, and Kenneth A Krohn. Multimodality brain tumor imaging: Mr imaging, pet, and pet/mr imaging.Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 56(10):1554–1561, 2015

    2015

  3. [9]

    A survey of mri-based medical image analysis for brain tumor studies.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 58(13):R97, 2013

    Stefan Bauer, Roland Wiest, Lutz-P Nolte, and Mauricio Reyes. A survey of mri-based medical image analysis for brain tumor studies.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 58(13):R97, 2013

    2013

  4. [10]

    Current state of functional mri in the presurgical planning of brain tumors.Radiology: Imaging Cancer, 5(6):e230078, 2023

    Dhairya A Lakhani, David S Sabsevitz, Kaisorn L Chaichana, Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa, and Erik H Middle- brooks. Current state of functional mri in the presurgical planning of brain tumors.Radiology: Imaging Cancer, 5(6):e230078, 2023

    2023

  5. [11]

    Interpreting and utilising intersubject variability in brain function.Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(6):517–530, 2018

    Mohamed L Seghier and Cathy J Price. Interpreting and utilising intersubject variability in brain function.Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(6):517–530, 2018

    2018

  6. [12]

    Brain tumor image generation using an aggregation of gan models with style transfer.Scientific reports, 12(1):9141, 2022

    Debadyuti Mukherkjee, Pritam Saha, Dmitry Kaplun, Aleksandr Sinitca, and Ram Sarkar. Brain tumor image generation using an aggregation of gan models with style transfer.Scientific reports, 12(1):9141, 2022

    2022

  7. [13]

    Bhakti Baheti, Diana Waldmannstetter, Satrajit Chakrabarty, Mohammad Akbari, Michel Bilello, Benedikt Wiestler, Julian Schwarting, Evan Calabrese, Rudie Jeffrey, Syed Abidi, et al. The brain tumor sequence 14 APREPRINT- NOVEMBER22, 2025 registration challenge: establishing cor...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Effects of whole-body mri on outpatient health service costs: a general-population prospective cohort study in mecklenburg-vorpommern, germany.BMJ open, 12(1):e056572, 2022

    Carsten Oliver Schmidt, Elizabeth Sierocinski, Sebastian-Edgar Baumeister, Katrin Hegenscheid, Henry Völzke, and Jean-François Chenot. Effects of whole-body mri on outpatient health service costs: a general-population prospective cohort study in mecklenburg-vorpommern, germany...

    2022

  9. [15]

    Generative adversarial networks.Communications of the ACM, 63(11):139–144, 2020

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks.Communications of the ACM, 63(11):139–144, 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    Multimodal medical image-to-image translation via variational autoencoder latent space mapping.Medical Physics, 2025

    Zhiwen Liang, Mengjie Cheng, Jinhui Ma, Ying Hu, Song Li, and Xin Tian. Multimodal medical image-to-image translation via variational autoencoder latent space mapping.Medical Physics, 2025

    2025

  11. [17]

    Unregularized auto-encoder with generative adversarial networks for image generation

    Jiayu Wang, Wengang Zhou, Jinhui Tang, Zhongqian Fu, Qi Tian, and Houqiang Li. Unregularized auto-encoder with generative adversarial networks for image generation. InProceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 709–717, 2018

    2018

  12. [18]

    Diversity in stable gans: A systematic review of mode collapse mitigation strategies.Engineering Reports, 7(6):e70209, 2025

    Matthew Cobbinah, Henry Nunoo-Mensah, Prince Ebenezer Adjei, Francisca Adoma Acheampong, Isaac Acquah, Eric Tutu Tchao, Andrew Selasi Agbemenu, Jerry John Kponyo, and Emmanuel Abaidoo. Diversity in stable gans: A systematic review of mode collapse mitigation strategies.Enginee...

    2025

  13. [19]

    Adversarially approximated autoencoder for image generation and manipulation.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(9):2387–2396, 2019

    Wenju Xu, Shawn Keshmiri, and Guanghui Wang. Adversarially approximated autoencoder for image generation and manipulation.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(9):2387–2396, 2019

    2019

  14. [20]

    Medical image synthesis via deep learning

    Biting Yu, Yan Wang, Lei Wang, Dinggang Shen, and Luping Zhou. Medical image synthesis via deep learning. Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis: Challenges and Applications, pages 23–44, 2020

    2020

  15. [21]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  16. [22]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  17. [23]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  18. [24]

    Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey.Medical image analysis, 88:102846, 2023

    Amirhossein Kazerouni, Ehsan Khodapanah Aghdam, Moein Heidari, Reza Azad, Mohsen Fayyaz, Ilker Haci- haliloglu, and Dorit Merhof. Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey.Medical image analysis, 88:102846, 2023

    2023

  19. [25]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3d medical image generation.Scientific Reports, 13(1):7303, 2023

    Firas Khader, Gustav Müller-Franzes, Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh, Tianyu Han, Christoph Haarburger, Maximilian Schulze-Hagen, Philipp Schad, Sandy Engelhardt, Bettina Baeßler, Sebastian Foersch, et al. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3d medical image generation.Scienti...

    2023

  20. [26]

    Ambiguous medical image segmentation using diffusion models

    Aimon Rahman, Jeya Maria Jose Valanarasu, Ilker Hacihaliloglu, and Vishal M Patel. Ambiguous medical image segmentation using diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11536–11546, 2023

    2023

  21. [27]

    Diffmic: Dual- guidance diffusion network for medical image classification

    Yijun Yang, Huazhu Fu, Angelica I Aviles-Rivero, Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb, and Lei Zhu. Diffmic: Dual- guidance diffusion network for medical image classification. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 95–105. Springer, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    Anatomically-controllable medical image generation with segmentation-guided diffusion models

    Nicholas Konz, Yuwen Chen, Haoyu Dong, and Maciej A Mazurowski. Anatomically-controllable medical image generation with segmentation-guided diffusion models. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 88–98. Springer, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Meddiff-ft: Data-efficient diffusion model fine-tuning with structural guidance for controllable medical image synthesis

    Jianhao Xie, Ziang Zhang, Zhenyu Weng, Yuesheng Zhu, and Guibo Luo. Meddiff-ft: Data-efficient diffusion model fine-tuning with structural guidance for controllable medical image synthesis. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventio...

    2025

  24. [31]

    Meddelinea: Scalable and efficient medical image segmentation via controllable diffusion transformers

    Gayatri Deshmukh, Onkar Kishor Susladkar, Debesh Jha, Elif Keles, Halil Ertugrul Aktas, Daniela P Ladner, Amir A Borhani, Gorkem Durak, Ulas Bagci, et al. Meddelinea: Scalable and efficient medical image segmentation via controllable diffusion transformers. InMedical Imaging w...

    2025

  25. [32]

    Med-cdiff: Conditional medical image generation with diffusion models.Bioengineering, 10(11):1258, 2023

    Alex Ling Yu Hung, Kai Zhao, Haoxin Zheng, Ran Yan, Steven S Raman, Demetri Terzopoulos, and Kyunghyun Sung. Med-cdiff: Conditional medical image generation with diffusion models.Bioengineering, 10(11):1258, 2023. 15 APREPRINT- NOVEMBER22, 2025

    2023

  26. [33]

    Fast- ddpm: Fast denoising diffusion probabilistic models for medical image-to-image generation.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    Hongxu Jiang, Muhammad Imran, Teng Zhang, Yuyin Zhou, Muxuan Liang, Kuang Gong, and Wei Shao. Fast- ddpm: Fast denoising diffusion probabilistic models for medical image-to-image generation.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    2025

  27. [34]

    Diffuseg: domain-driven diffusion for medical image segmentation.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    Le Zhang, Fuping Wu, Kevin Bronik, and Bartlomiej W Papiez. Diffuseg: domain-driven diffusion for medical image segmentation.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    2025

  28. [35]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    Medsegdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model

    Junde Wu, Rao Fu, Huihui Fang, Yu Zhang, Yehui Yang, Haoyi Xiong, Huiying Liu, and Yanwu Xu. Medsegdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model. InMedical Imaging with Deep Learning, pages 1623–1639. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    Diffboost: Enhancing medical image segmentation via text-guided diffusion model.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2024

    Zheyuan Zhang, Lanhong Yao, Bin Wang, Debesh Jha, Gorkem Durak, Elif Keles, Alpay Medetalibeyoglu, and Ulas Bagci. Diffboost: Enhancing medical image segmentation via text-guided diffusion model.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2024

    2024

  31. [38]

    Medical diffusion on a budget: textual inversion for medical image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13430, 2023

    Bram De Wilde, Anindo Saha, Maarten de Rooij, Henkjan Huisman, and Geert Litjens. Medical diffusion on a budget: textual inversion for medical image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13430, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Local conditional controlling for text-to-image diffusion models

    Yibo Zhao, Liang Peng, Yang Yang, Zekai Luo, Hengjia Li, Yao Chen, Zheng Yang, Xiaofei He, Wei Zhao, Qinglin Lu, et al. Local conditional controlling for text-to-image diffusion models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 10492–10500, 2025

    2025

  33. [40]

    Misalignment-aware mri-to-ct synthesis for lung segmen- tation on mri

    Nejung Rue, Inye Na, Ho Yun Lee, and Hyunjin Park. Misalignment-aware mri-to-ct synthesis for lung segmen- tation on mri. In2025 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  34. [41]

    Noise-consistent siamese-diffusion for medical image synthesis and segmentation

    Kunpeng Qiu, Zhiqiang Gao, Zhiying Zhou, Mingjie Sun, and Yongxin Guo. Noise-consistent siamese-diffusion for medical image synthesis and segmentation. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 15672–15681, 2025

    2025

  35. [42]

    Lesion region inpainting: an approach for pseudo-healthy image synthesis in intracranial infection imaging.Frontiers in Microbiology, 15:1453870, 2024

    Xiaojuan Liu, Cong Xiang, Libin Lan, Chuan Li, Hanguang Xiao, and Zhi Liu. Lesion region inpainting: an approach for pseudo-healthy image synthesis in intracranial infection imaging.Frontiers in Microbiology, 15:1453870, 2024

    2024

  36. [43]

    Denoising diffusion models for inpainting of healthy brain tissue

    Alicia Durrer, Philippe C Cattin, and Julia Wolleb. Denoising diffusion models for inpainting of healthy brain tissue. InInternational Challenge on Cross-Modality Domain Adaptation for Medical Image Segmentation, pages 35–45. Springer, 2023

    2023

  37. [44]

    Hierarchical diffusion framework for pseudo-healthy brain mri inpainting with enhanced 3d consistency

    Dou Hoon Kwark, Shirui Luo, Xiyue Zhu, Yudu Li, Zhi-Pei Liang, and V olodymyr Kindratenko. Hierarchical diffusion framework for pseudo-healthy brain mri inpainting with enhanced 3d consistency. InMICCAI Workshop on Deep Generative Models, pages 78–88. Springer, 2025

    2025

  38. [45]

    Brain tumour removing and missing modality generation using 3d wdm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04630, 2024

    André Ferreira, Gijs Luijten, Behrus Puladi, Jens Kleesiek, Victor Alves, and Jan Egger. Brain tumour removing and missing modality generation using 3d wdm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04630, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    A computational approach to edge detection.IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (6):679–698, 2009

    John Canny. A computational approach to edge detection.IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (6):679–698, 2009

    2009

  40. [47]

    Survey of image edge detection.Frontiers in Signal Processing, 2:826967, 2022

    Rui Sun, Tao Lei, Qi Chen, Zexuan Wang, Xiaogang Du, Weiqiang Zhao, and Asoke K Nandi. Survey of image edge detection.Frontiers in Signal Processing, 2:826967, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.