Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a lightweight residual refiner that enhances the output of a deep ensemble model for brain-MRI inpainting by incorporating a structural-similarity term into the loss function. By fine-tuning the ensemble's outputs with a varying weight on the structural term, the authors achieve a consistent improvement in the structural similarity index (SSIM) without adversely affecting the mean squared error (MSE). The method demonstrates that careful post-processing can yield significant gains in image quality, improving SSIM scores in over 62% of cases while maintaining computational efficiency.
A simple post-processing technique boosts SSIM in brain-MRI inpainting, enhancing image quality without retraining the ensemble model.
Brain-MRI inpainting replaces a masked region of a scan with synthesized, anatomically plausible healthy tissue, so that analysis tools built for healthy brains can be applied to images they would otherwise reject. On the BraTS local-synthesis benchmark, which ranks submissions on the structural similarity index (SSIM), the peak signal-to-noise ratio, and the mean squared error (MSE) jointly, the strongest recent models are accurate, but several report blurry synthesized regions and attribute this to the mean-seeking behavior of the $\ell_1$ and MSE terms in their training losses. We address this in post-processing, forming a deep ensemble of the two co-first-place 2025 models and training a lightweight residual refiner on the ensemble's own outputs under an $\ell_1$ loss augmented with a structural-similarity term whose weight $\lambda$ we vary. At a moderate $\lambda$ the refiner improves SSIM over the ensemble, from $0.8767$ to $0.8780$ on a held-out reproduction of the official scorer and from $0.8555$ to $0.8572$ on the official validation leaderboard, with essentially no change in MSE. The gain is small but consistent, improving $62.6\%$ of the held-out cases with a signed-rank $p=2.2\times10^{-7}$, whereas over-weighting the structural term reverses it. Two ablations bound the effect. Adding any third model to the two-model ensemble degrades it, and classical unsharp masking fails to improve SSIM at any strength (best $0.8765$ against $0.8767$), so the gain reflects learned rather than indiscriminate sharpening. The result is a cheap, reproducible post-processing stage that improves an already strong ensemble without any large-scale retraining.
