mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Between Generating Noise and Generating Images: Noise in the Correct Frequency Improves the Quality of Synthetic Histopathology Images for Digital Pathology

arXiv 2302.06549 ↗First posted 13 Feb 2023eess.IV cs.CV cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques have the promise to revolutionize the field of digital pathology. However, these models demand considerable amounts of data, while the availability of unbiased training data is limited. Synthetic images can augment existing datasets, to improve and validate AI algorithms. Yet, controlling the exact distribution of cellular features within them is still challenging. One of the solutions is harnessing conditional generative adversarial networks that take a semantic mask as an input rather than a random noise. Unlike other domains, outlining the exact cellular structure of tissues is hard, and most of the input masks depict regions of cell types. However, using polygon-based masks introduce inherent artifacts within the synthetic images - due to the mismatch between the polygon size and the single-cell size. In this work, we show that introducing random single-pixel noise with the appropriate spatial frequency into a polygon semantic mask can dramatically improve the quality of the synthetic images. We used our platform to generate synthetic images of immunohistochemistry-treated lung biopsies. We test the quality of the images using a three-fold validation procedure. First, we show that adding the appropriate noise frequency yields 87% of the similarity metrics improvement that is obtained by adding the actual single-cell features. Second, we show that the synthetic images pass the Turing test. Finally, we show that adding these synthetic images to the train set improves AI performance in terms of PD-L1 semantic segmentation performances. Our work suggests a simple and powerful approach for generating synthetic data on demand to unbias limited datasets to improve the algorithms' accuracy and validate their robustness.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2023.

Builds on

17 of 39 references.

References · 17

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  3. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  4. 2022Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 5,603
  5. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,451
  6. 2016Image-to-Image Translation with Conditional Adversarial Networkscited by 4,510
  7. 2014Conditional Generative Adversarial Netscited by 2,152
  8. 2018UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 1,518
  9. 2017High-Resolution Image Synthesis and Semantic Manipulation with Conditional GANscited by 1,176
  10. 2020Unsupervised Bidirectional Cross-Modality Adaptation via Deeply Synergistic Image and Feature Alignment for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 134
  11. 2017Synthetic Medical Images from Dual Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 32
  12. 2019PathologyGAN: Learning deep representations of cancer tissuecited by 32
5 more
  1. 2019Skin Lesion Synthesis with Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 22
  2. 2018A Deep Learning Algorithm for One-step Contour Aware Nuclei Segmentation of Histopathological Imagescited by 15
  3. 2021Machine learning approach for biopsy-based identification of eosinophilic esophagitis reveals importance of global featurescited by 10
  4. 2018Deep Semi Supervised Generative Learning for Automated PD-L1 Tumor Cell Scoring on NSCLC Tissue Needle Biopsiescited by 9
  5. 2022Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Infer Novel Spatial Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitiscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 1.

5 papers.