aiqbench analysis
This research critically examines the reliability of using AI-generated chest radiographs as synthetic data augmentation versus their inadmissibility as clinical evidence. The study demonstrates that while automated quality checks and origin classifiers can filter submissions, they frequently fail to verify the true acquisition source, leading to significant false positives on real medical images. Consequently, the authors advocate for strict metadata recording and separate verification of source provenance before admitting such data into medical datasets.
From Augmentation to Synthetic Evidence: Evaluating Generated Chest Radiographs at Dataset Intake
arXiv:2610.29152v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A generated chest radiograph can be useful as declared augmentation, but the same image becomes unsupported evidence when submitted as the record of a real examination. We study this problem by separating three questions: whether an image passes an automated quality check, whether an origin classifier flags it as generated, and whether a trusted record supports the claimed acquisition. In our experiments, Qwen selects up to 20 images from pools of 1,000 existing Cheff-identified or SynthCheX candidates. A receiver evaluates quality with MedGemma and predicted origin with a classifier on frozen DINOv3 features. Quality-based selection raises quality passes from 12 to 19 of 20 for Cheff-identified images and from 8 to 17 for SynthCheX. We find no evidence that selection improves passage through both checks: no selected Cheff-identified image passes both, while uniform, quality, and quality-constrained surrogate selection produce 2, 1, and 2 SynthCheX passes. On unprocessed test images, the origin classifier flags 4,677 of 5,000 SynthCheX images, but it also misclassify 110 of 2,297 NIH (real) images and 568 of 957 genuine images from another collection as fake. Our results further show that JPEG compression reduces SynthCheX-versus-NIH AUROC from 0.987 to 0.841. Even without processing, 152 SynthCheX images pass both pixel checks. These checks can filter submissions, but they cannot verify an acquisition claim. We strongly advocate that source and intended use must be recorded and checked separately for admission of chest radiographs in medical datasets.
Abstract:A generated chest radiograph can be useful as declared augmentation, but the same image becomes unsupported evidence when submitted as the record of a real examination. We study this problem by separating three questions: whether an image passes an automated quality check, whether an origin classifier flags it as generated, and whether a trusted record supports the claimed acquisition. In our experiments, Qwen selects up to 20 images from pools of 1,000 existing Cheff-identified or SynthCheX candidates. A receiver evaluates quality with MedGemma and predicted origin with a classifier on frozen DINOv3 features. Quality-based selection raises quality passes from 12 to 19 of 20 for Cheff-identified images and from 8 to 17 for SynthCheX. We find no evidence that selection improves passage through both checks: no selected Cheff-identified image passes both, while uniform, quality, and quality-constrained surrogate selection produce 2, 1, and 2 SynthCheX passes. On unprocessed test images, the origin classifier flags 4,677 of 5,000 SynthCheX images, but it also misclassify 110 of 2,297 NIH (real) images and 568 of 957 genuine images from another collection as fake. Our results further show that JPEG compression reduces SynthCheX-versus-NIH AUROC from 0.987 to 0.841. Even without processing, 152 SynthCheX images pass both pixel checks. These checks can filter submissions, but they cannot verify an acquisition claim. We strongly advocate that source and intended use must be recorded and checked separately for admission of chest radiographs in medical datasets.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.29152 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2610.29152v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.29152 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 340 words
Related coverage
CarDiff: Anatomically Aware Dental Caries Synthesis using Diffusion
arXiv · Nov 3, 2026
A radiographic world model for clinical reasoning and evidence generation
arXiv · Sep 9, 2026
Introducing CARE-X: Towards Clinically Useful Radiology VLMs with Auxiliary Supervision, Reward-Aligned Learning, and Tool-Augmented Measurement
Microsoft Research · Aug 11, 2026
FFCLRP helps dentists read x-rays, speeding up diagnosis
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 31, 2026