Cited by 231Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

Learning to Exploit Temporal Structure for Biomedical Vision-Language Processing

Open access
Bannur, Shruthi, Hyland, Stephanie, Liu, Qianchu, Pérez-García, Fernando, Ilse, Maximilian, Castro, Daniel C., Boecking, Benedikt, Sharma, Harshita +8 more·2023·2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Self-supervised learning in vision-language processing (VLP) exploits semantic alignment between imaging and text modalities. Prior work in biomedical VLP has mostly relied on the alignment of single image and report pairs even though clinical notes commonly refer to prior images. This does not only introduce poor alignment between the modalities but also a missed opportunity to exploit rich self-supervision through existing temporal content in the data. In this work, we explicitly account for prior images and reports when available during both training and fine-tuning. Our approach, named BioViL-T, uses a CNN-Transformer hybrid multi-image encoder trained jointly with a text model. It is designed to be versatile to arising challenges such as pose variations and missing input images across time. The resulting model excels on downstream tasks both in single- and multi-image setups, achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on (I) progression classification, (II) phrase grounding, and (III) report generation, whilst offering consistent improvements on disease classification and sentence-similarity tasks. We release a novel multi-modal temporal benchmark dataset, MS-CXR-T, to quantify the quality of vision-language representations in terms of temporal semantics. Our experimental results show the advantages of incorporating prior images and reports to make most use of the data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01442

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Comparison to previous imaging studies is crucial for tracking the development of disease or impact of treatment.

    “Comparison to previous imaging studies is crucial for tracking the development of disease or impact of treatment, and references to prior studies are frequent in radiology reporting. 16,17”

    From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

    Appendix B says radiologists compare images from different studies to assess pathology progression. Appendix A.1 also describes how prior-study information helps identify improvement or stability. Our copy does not explicitly address using those comparisons to assess the impact of treatment. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • References to prior studies can be used in conjunction with prior images to enable descriptions of change.

    “Such references can be removed to reduce hallucinations when prior studies are not available, 9,14,18 or used in conjunction with prior images to enable descriptions of change.17,19,20”

    From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

  • References to prior studies are frequent in radiology reporting.

    “Comparison to previous imaging studies is crucial for tracking the development of disease or impact of treatment, and references to prior studies are frequent in radiology reporting. 16,17”

    From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

  • It is not possible to quantitatively compare MAIRA-2 to models trained to generate other sections, such as Impression or both Findings and Impression together.

    “It is not possible to quantitatively compare to models trained to generate other sections, such as Impression 17 or both Findings and Impression together.15,58”

    From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

  • It is not possible to quantitatively compare MAIRA-2 to models trained to generate other sections, such as Impression or both Findings and Impression together.

    “It is not possible to quantitatively compare to models trained to generate other sections, such as Impression 17 or both Findings and Impression together.15,58”

    From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakan- tan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Lan- guage models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020. 5, 19
  2. Mark Endo, Rayan Krishnan, Viswesh Krishna, Andrew Y Ng, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Retrieval-based chest x-ray report generation using a pre-trained contrastive language-image model. In Machine Learning for Health, pages 209-219. PMLR, 2021. 5, 6, 18
  3. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight de- cay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. 17, 19
  4. Zhaoyang Zeng, Daniel McDuff, Yale Song, et al. Con- trastive learning of global and local video representa- tions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7025-7040, 2021. 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bannur, S., Hyland, S., Liu, Q., Pérez-García, F., Ilse, M., Castro, D. C., Boecking, B., Sharma, H., Bouzid, K., Thieme, A., Schwaighofer, A., Wetscherek, M., Lungren, M. P., Nori, A., Alvarez-Valle, J., & Oktay, O.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Microsoft Health Futures
Venue
2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-06
Pages
15016-15027
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386075916
Cited by
227
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 9
FWCI
24.28
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
temporal structure, self-supervised learning, clinical reports, phrase grounding, report generation, chest radiography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review