A Calibrated Memorization Index (MI) for Detecting Training Data Leakage in Generative MRI Models

Image generative models are known to duplicate images from the training data as part of their outputs, which can lead to privacy concerns when used for medical image generation. We propose a calibrated per-sample metric for detecting memorization and duplication of training data. Our metric uses image features extracted using an MRI foundation model, aggregates multi-layer whitened nearest-neighbor similarities, and maps them to a bounded \emph{Overfit/Novelty Index} (ONI) and \emph{Memorization Index} (MI) scores. Across three MRI datasets with controlled duplication percentages and typical image augmentations, our metric robustly detects duplication and provides more consistent metric values across datasets. At the sample level, our metric achieves near-perfect detection of duplicates.

Metrics that matter: Evaluating image quality metrics for medical image generation

Evaluating generative models for synthetic medical imaging is crucial yet challenging, especially given the high standards of fidelity, anatomical accuracy, and safety required for clinical applications. Standard evaluation of generated images often relies on no-reference image quality metrics when ground truth images are unavailable, but their reliability in this complex domain is not well established. This study comprehensively assesses commonly used no-reference image quality metrics using brain MRI data, including tumour and vascular images, providing a representative exemplar for the field. We systematically evaluate metric sensitivity to a range of challenges, including noise, distribution shifts, and, critically, localised morphological alterations designed to mimic clinically relevant inaccuracies. We then compare these metric scores against model performance on a relevant downstream segmentation task, analysing results across both controlled image perturbations and outputs from different generative model architectures. Our findings reveal significant limitations: many widely-used no-reference image quality metrics correlate poorly with downstream task suitability and exhibit a profound insensitivity to localised anatomical details crucial for clinical validity. Furthermore, these metrics can yield misleading scores regarding distribution shifts, e.g. data memorisation. This reveals the risk of misjudging model readiness, potentially leading to the deployment of flawed tools that could compromise patient safety. We conclude that ensuring generative models are truly fit for clinical purpose requires a multifaceted validation framework, integrating performance on relevant downstream tasks with the cautious interpretation of carefully selected no-reference image quality metrics.