REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 20 references
XLSTM-HVED: Cross-Modal Brain Tumor Segmentation and MRI Reconstruction Method Using Vision XLSTM and Heteromodal Variational Encoder-Decoder
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims one network can reconstruct missing MRI scans while segmenting brain tumors, reporting better average Dice and HD95 than three baselines on BraTS 2024.
desk verdict A plausible engineering integration for missing-modality brain tumor segmentation, but the headline superiority claim isn't supported by the reported evidence. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the three-module architecture itself. SAVE is the fusion engine: a multimodal variational autoencoder whose Product-of-Gaussians latent variable makes the model invariant to which modalities are present. ViLA is the sequence-processing engine: volumetric tokens are passed through mLSTM blocks, which maintain a matrix memory updated by covariance rules, and the module applies attention back to the original input, so spatial layout is not discarded. SFECA is the cross-task engine: channel-wise and spatial squeeze-fusion-excitation blocks recalibrate features flowing to the segmentation and reconstruction decoders, which is how the two tasks influence each other. Together these modules carry the claim that missing-modality robustness comes from better fusion and better task interaction rather than from simply more parameters.
What would settle it
Run all compared methods on the same BraTS 2024 split with an identical missing-modality training protocol, including the same random modality dropout schedule, augmentation, and training budget. If the average Dice and HD95 gaps reported in the paper's Table 1 drop below one point or reverse direction, the central claim that the architecture itself is better at missing-modality segmentation would not be supported.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that joint reconstruction and segmentation under missing modalities is improved by combining three mechanisms: a Self-Attention Variational Encoder (SAVE), a Vision XLSTM Attention (ViLA) module, and a Squeeze-Fusion-Excitation Cross Awareness (SFECA) module. SAVE encodes each available modality, fuses their means and covariances through a Product of Gaussians, and samples a shared latent variable, so missing modalities are excluded rather than imputed with zeros. ViLA reshapes the fused volume into tokens and processes them with Vision-LSTM mLSTM blocks plus softmax attention, giving the model a long-range dependence mechanism across the 3D volume. SFECA lets the segmentation and reconstruction decoders exchange recalibrated channel and spatial features during upsampling. In the BraTS 2024 experiments, the full model obtains the best average Dice and HD95 among the compared methods on whole tumor and tumor core, and the ablation study indicates all three modules contribute.
Load-bearing premise
The main assumption is that the baseline methods were trained for missing modalities just as carefully as the proposed model, with the same augmentation, loss weighting, and tuning; the paper does not report those details for the baselines.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Under the paper's results, a single trained model can be queried with any nonempty subset of T1, T1ce, T2, and FLAIR, so one deployment covers all missing-modality patterns.
- The reconstructed MRI sequences are produced by the same network that segments the tumor, so the output could serve both automated contouring and radiologist review.
- The ablation results imply the three modules are complementary, not redundant, with each module contributing to a different part of the segmentation quality.
- Because both tasks share one backbone rather than being separate pipeline stages, reconstruction behavior is visible in the same output and can be audited alongside segmentation.
Reading between the lines
- If the reported advantage holds under matched baseline training, the approach could directly support clinical workflows in which contrast agent cannot be administered, since the missing-modality comparisons often involve T1ce.
- The ViLA module's tokenization of the whole volume suggests the same shared-latent missing-modality design could transfer to other volumetric medical tasks, such as cardiac or abdominal multi-sequence imaging.
- A natural next experiment is a controlled rerun in which every baseline is trained under the same missing-modality protocol, same augmentation, and same tuning budget; that would tell how much of the paper's margin is architecture and how much is training procedure.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This manuscript proposes XLSTM-HVED, a multi-task model for brain tumor segmentation and MRI modality reconstruction under missing-modality conditions. The architecture extends the heteromodal variational encoder-decoder with a Self-Attention Variational Encoder (SAVE), a Vision-LSTM Attention (ViLA) module, and a Squeeze-Fusion-Excitation Cross Awareness (SFECA) module. Experiments on BraTS 2024 compare Dice and HD95 against RA-HVED, RMBTS, and mmformer across all 15 subsets of available modalities, and an ablation study examines the three proposed components. The authors claim that their model significantly outperforms existing methods for missing-modality cases; the evidence, however, is limited to single runs with no statistical testing, and the comparison protocol for baselines is not described in sufficient detail. Source code is provided via GitHub.
Significance. If substantiated, the method would be a useful contribution to missing-modality brain tumor segmentation, combining reconstruction and segmentation with recent xLSTM-based attention. The paper's strengths include evaluation on the large BraTS 2024 dataset, ablation of each proposed module, and public source code. However, as presented, the central claim of significant improvement is not established: no repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, and the baseline protocol is ambiguous. The work is not circular in the sense of fitting parameters to the target outcome; it is an empirical comparison. Its significance is therefore conditional on additional controlled experiments.
major comments (4)
- [§3.2, Table 1] The central claim in the abstract that the model 'significantly outperforms existing advanced methods' is not supported by the evidence in Table 1. The table reports only point estimates from what appears to be a single run; no standard deviations, number of seeds, or significance tests are given. Several reported advantages are small (average WT Dice 74.53 vs. mmformer's 74.16; average ET Dice 53.83 vs. 52.99), and in some single-modality configurations baselines are substantially better (T2-only TC Dice: mmformer 47.24 vs. 36.60; T1-only TC Dice: mmformer 44.39 vs. 23.23). The phrase 'significantly' therefore needs repeated experiments and paired statistical tests, or the claim must be withdrawn.
- [§3.1, §3.2] The baseline comparison is not demonstrably fair. The paper says 'All the baselines and our model were trained and tested using the same backbone network' and then states 'We selected U-HVED [3] as the backbone network,' but mmformer is a transformer architecture and RMBTS uses feature disentanglement and gated fusion; neither can literally be built on U-HVED. The text also does not specify how any baseline was trained for missing modalities: no modality-dropout schedule, loss functions, data augmentation, hyperparameter tuning, training epochs, or convergence criteria are reported. Training all models for the same 72-hour wall clock is mentioned in §3.1, but this does not guarantee convergence. Without this information, the reported improvements could reflect an unfavorable baseline setup.
- [§2, §3.2, Table 1] The title advertises an 'MRI Reconstruction Method,' and §2.1 says the model 'can reconstruct existing MRI data' and 'supplement missing data,' yet no reconstruction-quality results are reported anywhere. Table 1 contains only Dice and HD95 segmentation scores; there are no PSNR/SSIM values, no qualitative reconstruction examples, and no comparison of reconstructed modalities. Either add reconstruction evaluation or revise the title and contribution claims to focus on segmentation.
- [§3.3, Table 2] The ablation study in Table 2 is also based on single runs without repeated seeds or significance tests. The conclusion in §4 that 'removing any module significantly diminishes the model's overall performance' is not statistically supported; for example, the WT HD95 for w/o ViLA is 22.69 vs. 17.86 for the full model, and no error bars are provided. The ablation claims should be backed by multiple runs and appropriate tests, or stated descriptively.
minor comments (4)
- [Table 1] The caption contains a typo ('A valiable Modalities') and does not define the symbols ◦ and • used to indicate available modalities; please add a legend.
- [§3.1] The 80/20 train/test split should specify the number of patients in each set, the random seed, and whether the split was performed at the patient level to avoid data leakage.
- [References] References [4] and [13] are the same paper and should be consolidated into a single citation; reference [10] is listed as 'Anonymous' and under review and should be updated to its published version if available.
- [§2.2] The module name is written inconsistently as 'SA VE' and 'SAVE'; please use one spelling throughout.
Circularity Check
No circular reasoning found; the reported gains are empirical benchmark comparisons, and the baseline-fairness concerns belong to correctness risk rather than circularity.
full rationale
This paper makes no derivation-based claim; it is an empirical comparison against external baselines on the BraTS 2024 dataset. The proposed XLSTM-HVED model is assembled from named external components (HVED, MVAE, PoG, ViL, DuSFE), and the reported Dice/HD95 numbers are measurements on held-out test data rather than consequences of the model's definitions. Checking the seven circularity patterns: (1) no self-definitional step appears, since no quantity is defined in terms of the target metric and the variational fusion and reconstruction decoders are architectural choices, not fitted to test labels; (2) no fitted input is called a prediction, because no parameter is fit to a subset and then reported as a prediction of that same subset; (3) self-citations are only incidental, such as reference [2], a prior MRI-reconstruction paper by overlapping authors used to support the general statement that MRI is the preferred diagnostic method, and they do not carry the central claim; (4) no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and the choice of U-HVED as backbone is presented as an implementation decision rather than a forced mathematical consequence; (5) the Vision-LSTM and DuSFE modules are cited as external components, not as the source of the paper's own predicted performance; (6) no known result is renamed, since XLSTM-HVED is a specific architecture rather than a relabeling of the benchmark. The main weakness is experimental fairness: the paper states that all baselines used the same backbone network even though mmformer and RMBTS are architecturally distinct, and it does not report the missing-modality training protocol, augmentation details, or number of seeds. This is a validity risk, not circularity, because the comparison remains against external benchmark data rather than being derived from the model's own assumptions. The paper also concedes lower enhancing-tumor Dice in some configurations, which is inconsistent with a forced or circular conclusion.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (3)
- domain assumption The BraTS 2024 dataset and the random 80/20 split provide a representative and unbiased evaluation of missing-modality segmentation.
- domain assumption The baseline models (RA-HVED, RMBTS, mmformer) were re-implemented and trained fairly under the same backbone and training conditions, enabling a valid comparison.
- ad hoc to paper The architectural changes (SAVE, ViLA, SFECA) are the cause of the observed performance differences, and not confounded by training schedule or initialization effects.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of XLSTM-HVED: Cross-Modal Brain Tumor Segmentation and MRI Reconstruction Method Using Vision XLSTM and Heteromodal Variational Encoder-Decoder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VDGNFIQM
@misc{pith2026241207804,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: XLSTM-HVED: Cross-Modal Brain Tumor Segmentation and MRI Reconstruction Method Using Vision XLSTM and Heteromodal Variational Encoder-Decoder},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VDGNFIQM}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07804}
}
read the original abstract
Neurogliomas are among the most aggressive forms of cancer, presenting considerable challenges in both treatment and monitoring due to their unpredictable biological behavior. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is currently the preferred method for diagnosing and monitoring gliomas. However, the lack of specific imaging techniques often compromises the accuracy of tumor segmentation during the imaging process. To address this issue, we introduce the XLSTM-HVED model. This model integrates a hetero-modal encoder-decoder framework with the Vision XLSTM module to reconstruct missing MRI modalities. By deeply fusing spatial and temporal features, it enhances tumor segmentation performance. The key innovation of our approach is the Self-Attention Variational Encoder (SAVE) module, which improves the integration of modal features. Additionally, it optimizes the interaction of features between segmentation and reconstruction tasks through the Squeeze-Fusion-Excitation Cross Awareness (SFECA) module. Our experiments using the BraTS 2024 dataset demonstrate that our model significantly outperforms existing advanced methods in handling cases where modalities are missing. Our source code is available at https://github.com/Quanato607/XLSTM-HVED.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[3]
EXPERIMENT RESULT 3.1. Dataset and Implementation Details Our study utilizes the multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge (BraTS) 2024 dataset [12]. This dataset includes MRI scans from T1, T1ce, T2, and FLAIR modalities of ap- proximately 4,500 patients diagnosed with various gliomas. The images have been resampled to a uniform one mm³ res- olution,...
work page 2024
-
[1]
Within this category, diffuse gliomas are the most frequently occurring malignant subtype
INTRODUCTION Neurogliomas rank among the deadliest cancers and are the most common malignant primary brain tumors in adults, ac- counting for approximately 25% of all primary brain tumors and 80% of malignant primary brain and central nervous sys- tem tumors. Within this category, diffuse gliomas are the most frequently occurring malignant subtype. Howeve...
-
[2]
METHODS 2.1. Model Overview As illustrated in Figure 1, we introduce the XLSTM-HVED model, designed to improve the interaction of features be- tween different MRI modalities. This model employs the Het- eromodal Variational Encoder-Decoder (HVED) to capitalize on the capabilities of XLSTM. It merges channel and spatial information through the SFECA module...
work page Pith review arXiv 2025
-
[4]
CONCLUSION In this paper, we introduce the XLSTM-HVED model to address brain tumor segmentation challenges, particularly in scenarios where some MRI modalities are unavailable. Our model enhances segmentation accuracy and MRI data reconstruction quality by integrating cross-modal encoding, multi-task learning, and attention mechanisms. The SA VE module fa...
work page 2024
-
[5]
Ethical approval was not required as con- firmed by the license attached with the open access data
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS This research study was conducted retrospectively using hu- man subject data made available in open access by BraTS 2024 dataset [12]. Ethical approval was not required as con- firmed by the license attached with the open access data
work page 2024
-
[6]
A2304), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No
ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by Key R&D Program of Zhe- jiang (2023C03101), Medical Health Science and Tech- nology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission (2023KY832), the Open Project Program of the State Key Laboratory of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University (No. A2304), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No. 2022A15151105...
work page 2022
-
[7]
Auto-encoding variational bayes,
Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” CoRR, vol. abs/1312.6114, 2013
arXiv 2013
-
[8]
Missing mri pulse sequence synthesis using multi-modal generative adversarial network,
Anmol Sharma and Ghassan Hamarneh, “Missing mri pulse sequence synthesis using multi-modal generative adversarial network,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1170–1183, 2019
work page 2019
Show all 20 references
-
[9]
Tc-kanrecon: High- quality and accelerated mri reconstruction via adaptive kan mechanisms and intelligent feature scaling,
Ruiquan Ge, Xiao Yu, Yifei Chen, Fan Jia, Shenghao Zhu, Guanyu Zhou, Yiyu Huang, Chenyan Zhang, Dong Zeng, Changmiao Wang, et al., “Tc-kanrecon: High- quality and accelerated mri reconstruction via adaptive kan mechanisms and intelligent feature scaling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:...
2024 arXiv
-
[10]
Hetero-modal vari- ational encoder-decoder for joint modality completion and segmentation,
Reuben Dorent, Samuel Joutard, Marc Modat, S´ebastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren, “Hetero-modal vari- ational encoder-decoder for joint modality completion and segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Confe...
2019
-
[12]
M3ae: multimodal representation learning for brain tumor segmentation with missing modalities,
Hong Liu, Dong Wei, Donghuan Lu, Jinghan Sun, Lian- sheng Wang, and Yefeng Zheng, “M3ae: multimodal representation learning for brain tumor segmentation with missing modalities,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023, vol. 37, pp. 1657–1665
2023
-
[13]
All the baselines and our model were trained and tested using the same backbone network to ensure consistency in the evaluation phase
models as baselines. All the baselines and our model were trained and tested using the same backbone network to ensure consistency in the evaluation phase. As detailed in Table 1, our model’s performance is compared to these baselines using Dice scores and HD95 scores. We sele...
-
[14]
Multimodal generative models for scalable weakly-supervised learning,
Mike Wu and Noah Goodman, “Multimodal generative models for scalable weakly-supervised learning,” Ad- vances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018
2018
-
[15]
Generalized product of experts for automatic and principled fu- sion of gaussian process predictions,
Yanshuai Cao and David J Fleet, “Generalized product of experts for automatic and principled fu- sion of gaussian process predictions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.7827, 2014
2014 arXiv
-
[16]
Region-of-interest attentive hetero- modal variational encoder-decoder for segmentation with missing modalities,
Seungwan Jeong, Hwanho Cho, Junmo Kwon, and Hyunjin Park, “Region-of-interest attentive hetero- modal variational encoder-decoder for segmentation with missing modalities,” in Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision, 2022, pp. 3707–3723
2022
-
[17]
Vision-LSTM: xLSTM as generic vision backbone,
Anonymous, “Vision-LSTM: xLSTM as generic vision backbone,” in Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024, under review
2024
-
[18]
Dusfe: Dual-channel squeeze-fusion-excitation co-attention for cross-modality registration of cardiac spect and ct,
Xiongchao Chen, Bo Zhou, Huidong Xie, Xueqi Guo, Jiazhen Zhang, James S Duncan, Edward J Miller, Al- bert J Sinusas, John A Onofrey, and Chi Liu, “Dusfe: Dual-channel squeeze-fusion-excitation co-attention for cross-modality registration of cardiac spect and ct,” Medical image...
2023
-
[19]
The 2024 brain tumor segmenta- tion (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post- treatment mri,
Maria Correia de Verdier, Rachit Saluja, Louis Gagnon, Dominic LaBella, Ujjwall Baid, Nourel Hoda Tahon, Martha Foltyn-Dumitru, Jikai Zhang, Maram Alafif, Saif Baig, et al., “The 2024 brain tumor segmenta- tion (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post- treatment mri,” ar...
2024 arXiv
-
[20]
Robust multimodal brain tumor segmentation via feature disentanglement and gated fu- sion,
Cheng Chen, Qi Dou, Yueming Jin, Hao Chen, Jing Qin, and Pheng-Ann Heng, “Robust multimodal brain tumor segmentation via feature disentanglement and gated fu- sion,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer As- sisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, She...
2019
-
[21]
mmformer: Multimodal medical trans- former for incomplete multimodal learning of brain tu- mor segmentation,
Yao Zhang, Nanjun He, Jiawei Yang, Yuexiang Li, Dong Wei, Yawen Huang, Yang Zhang, Zhiqiang He, and Yefeng Zheng, “mmformer: Multimodal medical trans- former for incomplete multimodal learning of brain tu- mor segmentation,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computi...
2022
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.