# Eyes Tell the Truth: GazeVal Highlights Shortcomings of Generative AI in Medical Imaging

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20967 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20967/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.11239/) (2020)
- [High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.10752/) (2021)
- [Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.06125/) (2022)
- [Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11487/) (2022)
- [How to Fool Radiologists with Generative Adversarial Networks? A Visual Turing Test for Lung Cancer Diagnosis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.09762/) (2017)
- [GazeGNN: A Gaze-Guided Graph Neural Network for Chest X-ray Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18221/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Segment Anything for Video: A Comprehensive Review of Video Object Segmentation and Tracking from Past to Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.22792/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The demand for high-quality synthetic data for model training and augmentation has never been greater in medical imaging. However, current evaluations predominantly rely on computational metrics that fail to align with human expert recognition. This leads to synthetic images that may appear realistic numerically but lack clinical authenticity, posing significant challenges in ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of AI-driven medical tools. To address this gap, we introduce GazeVal, a practical framework that synergizes expert eye-tracking data with direct radiological evaluations to assess the quality of synthetic medical images. GazeVal leverages gaze patterns of radiologists as they provide a deeper understanding of how experts perceive and interact with synthetic data in different tasks (i.e., diagnostic or Turing tests). Experiments with sixteen radiologists revealed that 96.6% of the generated images (by the most recent state-of-the-art AI algorithm) were identified as fake, demonstrating the limitations of generative AI in producing clinically accurate images.