Cited by 253Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Combining Noise-to-Image and Image-to-Image GANs: Brain MR Image Augmentation for Tumor Detection

Open access
Han, Changhee, Rundo, Leonardo, Araki, Ryosuke, Nagano, Yudai, Furukawa, Yujiro, Mauri, Giancarlo, Nakayama, Hideki, Hayashi, Hideaki·2019·IEEE Access

Abstract

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) achieve excellent computer-assisted diagnosis with sufficient annotated training data. However, most medical imaging datasets are small and fragmented. In this context, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) can synthesize realistic/diverse additional training images to fill the data lack in the real image distribution; researchers have improved classification by augmenting data with noise-to-image (e.g., random noise samples to diverse pathological images) or image-to-image GANs (e.g., a benign image to a malignant one). Yet, no research has reported results combining noise-to-image and image-to-image GANs for further performance boost. Therefore, to maximize the DA effect with the GAN combinations, we propose a two-step GAN-based DA that generates and refines brain Magnetic Resonance (MR) images with/without tumors separately: (i) Progressive Growing of GANs (PGGANs), multi-stage noise-to-image GAN for high-resolution MR image generation, first generates realistic/diverse 256×256 images; (ii) Multimodal UNsupervised Image-to-image Translation (MUNIT) that combines GANs/Variational AutoEncoders or SimGAN that uses a DA-focused GAN loss, further refines the texture/shape of the PGGAN-generated images similarly to the real ones. We thoroughly investigate CNN-based tumor classification results, also considering the influence of pre-training on ImageNet and discarding weird-looking GAN-generated images. The results show that, when combined with classic DA, our two-step GAN-based DA can significantly outperform the classic DA alone, in tumor detection (i.e., boosting sensitivity 93.67% to 97.48%) and also in other medical imaging tasks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2019.2947606

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior research found that generative AI created nonfactual or unfaithful data and outputs.

    “Prior research found that generative AI created nonfactual or unfaithful data and outputs [72,77].”

    From Generative AI in medical practice: in-depth exploration of privacy and security challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [72]

    In “MR Images Generated by PGGANs,” the paper reports that about 25% of its synthetic brain MR images lacked clear tumor features or contained unrealistic features and artifacts. This supports the point that some generated images were unfaithful, but it does not establish a general finding about generative AI outputs or their factual accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Noise-to-image and image-to-image GANs have been used to synthesize realistic training magnetic resonance imaging images to boost the performance of convolutional neural networks for image diagnostic AI.

    “Noise-to-image and image-to-image GANs have been used to synthesize realistic training magnetic resonance imaging images to boost the performance of convolutional neural networks for image diagnostic AI [39,72].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Han, C., Rundo, L., Araki, R., Nagano, Y., Furukawa, Y., Mauri, G., Nakayama, H., & Hayashi, H.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Informatics (JP)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Chubu University (JP)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Jikei University School of Medicine (JP)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • International Research Center for Neurointelligence, The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Kyushu University (JP)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2019
Volume
7
Pages
156966-156977
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981036610
Cited by
253
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 3
FWCI
12.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Qdai-jump Research Program
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP17K12752)
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP18lk1010028)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative adversarial networks, data augmentation, brain MRI, brain tumor detection, image-to-image translation, progressive growing GAN, variational autoencoder, medical image synthesis, tumor classification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review