Author
Listed:
- Nicholas Dietrich
- David McShannon
Abstract
Data scarcity is a persistent challenge in medical image analysis. Synthetic data generation using deep generative models has been proposed as a potential approach to address this limitation, yet its performance in small-data settings remains poorly characterized. This study compared three class-conditional generative approaches, a conditional variational autoencoder (cVAE), a conditional shallow-decoder VAE variant (cSD-VAE), and a conditional Wasserstein GAN with gradient penalty (cWGAN-GP), against classical geometric augmentation for emphysema subtype classification on 168 CT patches (three classes: normal tissue, centrilobular emphysema, and paraseptal emphysema). Each method was evaluated at three synthetic-to-real ratios (0.5x, 1.0x, 2.0x) using patient-level 70/30 splits across 10 random seeds, with an ImageNet-pretrained ResNet18 as the downstream classifier. No individual augmentation strategy produced a statistically significant improvement in balanced accuracy over the unaugmented baseline (0.522 ± 0.067). The conditional WGAN-GP at 1.0x achieved the highest individual balanced accuracy (0.548 ± 0.068, Cohen’s d = 0.47 versus baseline), but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.084). A pre-specified ensemble combining all four augmentation methods at the 1.0x multiplier did not significantly improve balanced accuracy over baseline (0.541 ± 0.088 versus 0.522 ± 0.067; Cohen’s d = 0.32, Wilcoxon p = 0.275). Neither pixel-space nor feature-space distributional fidelity was associated with downstream classification performance. Overall, no benefit was detected from class-conditional generative augmentation in this small-data, texture-driven setting. Future work should focus on improving generative modeling under small-data conditions, including task-aware objectives and pathology-constrained synthesis.
Suggested Citation
Nicholas Dietrich & David McShannon, 2026.
"Synthetic data augmentation for CT-based emphysema subtype classification: A comparative evaluation of generative and classical approaches,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(8), pages 1-14, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0355850
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0355850
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0355850. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.