Modern problems in Biomedical Imaging

2026 Workshop on MR Phase, Magnetic Susceptibility and Electrical Properties Mapping

Jeremias Sulam

50 years ago ... 

first CT scan
ELECTRIC & MUSICAL INDUSTRIES

50 years ago ... 

imaging
diagnostics

complete hardware & software description

human expert diagnosis and recommendations

imaging was "simple"

... 50 years forward 

Data

Compute & Hardware

Sensors & Connectivity

Research & Engineering

... 50 years forward 

data-driven  imaging
automatic analysis and rec.
societal implications

Data

Compute & Hardware

Sensors & Connectivity

Research & Engineering

data-driven  imaging
automatic analysis and rec.
societal implications

Problems in trustworthy biomedical imaging

inverse problems

uncertainty quantification

robustness

generalization

demographic fairness

hardware & protocol optimization

model-agnostic interpretability

policy & regulation

monitoring & auditing

data-driven  imaging
automatic analysis and rec.
societal implications

Problems in trustworthy biomedical imaging

inverse problems

uncertainty quantification

robustness

generalization

demographic fairness

hardware & protocol optimization

model-agnostic interpretability

policy & regulation

monitoring & auditing

=
+

\(x\sim p_x\)

\(z\sim \mathcal N(0,\sigma^2 I)\)

\(y = x + z\)

=

\(x\sim p_x\)

+

\(z\sim \mathcal N(0,\sigma^2 I)\)

\(A~\cdot\)

\(y = Ax + z\)

estimate

Inverse Problems

\(= \underset{x}{\arg\max} ~~~ p(y|x)p_x(x)\)

\(= \underset{x}{\arg\min} ~ -\log p(y|x) - \log p_x(x)\)

\(= \underset{x}{\arg\min} ~ \frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \|y-x\|^2_2 - \log p_x(x)\)

\(\hat{x} = \underset{x}{\arg\max} ~ p(x|y)\)

Maximum a

Posteriori

estimator

MAP

likelihood
prior

\(= \text{prox}_{-\sigma^2 \log p_x}(y)\)

Inverse Problems

=
+

\(x\sim p_x\)

\(z\sim \mathcal N(0,\sigma^2 I)\)

\(y = x + z\)

Inverse Problems

=

\(x\sim p_x\)

+

\(z\sim \mathcal N(0,\sigma^2 I)\)

\(y = A x + z\)

\(A~ \cdot\)

Inverse Problems

=

\(x\sim p_x\)

+

\(z\sim \mathcal N(0,\sigma^2 I)\)

\(y = A x + z\)

\(A~ \cdot\)

Inverse Problems

=

\(x\sim p_x\)

+

\(z\sim \mathcal N(0,\sigma^2 I)\)

\(y = A x + z\)

\(A~ \cdot\)

Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping

[Lai, Kuo-Wei, et al. "Learned proximal networks for quantitative susceptibility mapping." International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.]

[Fang, Zhenghan, et al. "DeepSTI: Towards tensor reconstruction using fewer orientations in susceptibility tensor imaging." Medical image analysis 87 (2023): 102829.]

Susceptibility Tensor Imaging

[Fang, Zhenghan, et al. "DeepSTI: Towards tensor reconstruction using fewer orientations in susceptibility tensor imaging." Medical image analysis 87 (2023): 102829.]

Conditional (Prox) Diffusion Sampling

baseline

Priors for MR Spectroscopy

data-driven  imaging
automatic analysis and rec.
societal implications

Problems in trustworthy biomedical imaging

inverse problems

uncertainty quantification

robustness

generalization

demographic fairness

hardware & protocol optimization

model-agnostic interpretability

policy & regulation

monitoring & auditing

in a box

Denoiser

Measurements

Reconstruction

Uncertainty Quantification

x^=fθ(y)\hat{x} = f_\theta(y)

pixelj\text{pixel}_j

x^j\hat{x}_j

(point predictors)

What is the uncertainty in the guess x^j\hat x_j?

How do we report uncertainty rigorously?

\(y = Ax + z\)

Measurements

X^=F(y)Py\hat{X} = F(y) \sim \mathcal{P}_y

Sampling

pixelj\text{pixel}_j

x^j\hat{x}_j

(predictive distribution)

What is the uncertainty in the guess x^j\hat x_j?

How do we report uncertainty rigorously?

Uncertainty Quantification

\(y = Ax + z\)

in a box

Denoiser

00

11

l(y)j l(y)_j

u(y)j u(y)_j

Uncertainty through Prediction Sets

How do we construct them?

  • pixel-wise mean ±\pm standard deviation
  • Quantile regression
  • MC-dropout (Gal & Ghahramani, 2016)
  • any other heuristics... 

C:yC(y)[0,1]dC: y \mapsto C(y) \subseteq [0,1]^d

C(y)j=[l(y)j,u(y)j]\mathcal C(y)_j = [l(y)_j,u(y)_j]

Miscoverage:

(y,x)=1dj[d]1 ⁣{xjC(y)j}\ell(y,x) = \frac{1}{d} \sum_{j\in[d]} \mathbf{1}\!\left\{x_j \notin C(y)_j\right\}

00

11

l(y)j l(y)_j

u(y)j u(y)_j

Uncertainty through Prediction Sets

C:yC(y)[0,1]dC: y \mapsto C(y) \subseteq [0,1]^d

ground truth!

\(x_j\)

00

11

l(y)j l(y)_j

C(y)j\mathcal C(y)_j

u(y)j u(y)_j

λ\lambda

λ\lambda

C(y)j=[lj(y),uj(y)]    Cλ(y)j=[lj(y)λ,  uj(y)+λ] C(y)_j = [l_j(y),u_j(y)] \;\longrightarrow\; C_{\lambda}(y)_j = [l_j(y)-{\color{green}{\lambda}},\;u_j(y)+{\color{green}\lambda}]

Uncertainty through Prediction Sets

Given a calibration set \(S_\text{cal} = \{x_i,y_i\},\)  provides a simple procedure so that

\(\mathbb{E} [\ell(C(y),x))]\leq \epsilon \)

(distribution free!)

Conformal Risk Control: 

[Angelopoulos et al, 2024]

Cλ(y)j=[lj(y)λ,  uj(y)+λ]C_{\lambda}(y)_j = [l_j(y)-{\color{green}{\lambda}},\;u_j(y)+{\color{green}\lambda}]

Observation 1:   Single λ\lambda for all dd dimensions... suboptimal

Uncertainty through Prediction Sets

Cλ(y)j=[lj(y)λ,  uj(y)+λ]C_{\lambda}(y)_j = [l_j(y)-{\color{green}{\lambda}},\;u_j(y)+{\color{green}\lambda}]

Observation 1:   Single λ\lambda for all dd dimensions... suboptimal

Observation 2:   High-dim data is heterogenous

Cλ(y)j=[lj(y)λj,  uj(y)+λj]C_{\lambda}(y)_j = [l_j(y)-{\color{green}{\lambda_j}},\;u_j(y)+{\color{green}\lambda_j}]

\(\lambda_j\) for each \(j^\text{th}\) organ

Uncertainty through Prediction Sets

Semantic Uncertainty Quantification

risk controlled uniformly for every organ

[Teneggi, Jacopo, J. Webster Stayman, and Jeremias Sulam. "Conformal risk control for semantic uncertainty quantification in computed tomography."  MICCAI , 2025.]

data-driven  imaging
automatic analysis and rec.
societal implications

Problems in trustworthy biomedical imaging

inverse problems

uncertainty quantification

robustness

generalization

demographic fairness

hardware & protocol optimization

model-agnostic interpretability

policy & regulation

monitoring & auditing

Acknowledgements

Jacopo Teneggi 

Zhenghan Fang

Yuqing He

Xu Li

Peter van Zijl

Georg Oeltzschner

Chris Davies-Jenkins

policy & regulation

robustness

generalization

uncertainty quantification

Mathematical tractability vs Complexity

in a box

simpler models

 more assumptions

any model

no assumptions

Denoiser

Linear models

Linear networks

Shallow

ReLU Networks

Just ask GPT

Conformal guarantees

Bayesian

MC Dropout