Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 105 references

The Latent Space Hypothesis: Toward Universal Medical Representation Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Diverse medical measurements may be projections of one underlying biological state.

desk verdict A well-written perspective that usefully names a unifying hunch but claims more than the cited evidence can carry; worth refereeing as a perspective, not as a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04515 v1 pith:RX6E4OI3 submitted 2025-06-04 q-bio.QM cs.AIcs.LG

Salil Patel This is my paper
classification q-bio.QMcs.AIcs.LG
keywords latentspacehypothesismedicalrepresentationlearningmanifoldcross-modaltransferprecisionmedicinediseasetrajectoriesmultimodalfoundationmodelseponymousreclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The Latent Space Hypothesis, as the paper formulates it, claims that retinal images, genomes, lab values, clinical notes, voice recordings, and wearable signals are not separate kinds of information but different projections of a single, hierarchically organized biological state. The paper's central assertion is that learning a shared geometric representation of this state would let a patient's health be a point, disease progression a trajectory, and treatment a vector in one space. If true, this would explain why models trained on retinal images predict cardiovascular events and why voice analysis detects neurodegeneration years early: those modalities overlap because they sample the same underlying process. The paper presents the case as a framework rather than a finished proof and devotes a full section to the gap between idealized mathematics and biological messiness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the latent space $Z$ with the encoder $f_\theta: X \to Z$, together with the manifold hypothesis that high-dimensional medical measurements lie on or near a low-dimensional manifold embedded in the measurement space. The argument proceeds by decomposing each modality's representation into shared and unique components, aligning shared components across modalities, and organizing latent spaces hierarchically across biological scales such as molecular, cellular, tissue, and organism levels. Trajectories $\frac{dz}{dt} = f_\theta(z, u, t)$ encode the dynamics of health and intervention, converting clinical reasoning into geometry. Tokenization is the auxiliary mechanism that turns every modality into a common currency so these geometric relationships can be learned by sequence models.

What would settle it

Take two modalities with no known shared biological link and train the same cross-modal latent alignment used in the paper; if the learned model still transfers information between them on held-out patients, the shared manifold is being fabricated by the encoder rather than discovered. If, instead, such arbitrary modalities align no better than chance, the hypothesis survives this test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the core discovery is the assertion that 'these diverse measurements are different projections of the same underlying biological reality.' The paper proposes a complete physiological state $\mathcal{S}$ in $\mathbb{R}^N$ as ground truth, where each modality $i$ observes a projection $M_i = f_i(\mathcal{S}) + \epsilon_i$; a learned encoder $f_\theta$ maps each measurement into a latent space $Z$ where shared and modality-specific information are separated as $Z_i = [Z_{\mathrm{shared}}, Z_{i,\mathrm{unique}}]$. Across the paper, this geometric structure is asked to do the work of unifying medicine: diseases become clusters, progression becomes paths, interventions become directed vectors, and eponymous labels such as Parkinson's or Crohn's are hypothesized to resolve into distinct phenotypic clusters with different treatment vectors. The paper claims foundation models trained across modalities are existence proofs of this convergence, and that continuous monitoring will turn health from point-in-time snapshots into trajectories that can be navigated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the manifold hypothesis for medical data: that high-dimensional measurements from every modality lie on or near a low-dimensional smooth surface whose geometry can be inferred from finite samples, and that health and disease vary mostly along such surfaces rather than through discrete jumps, rare isolated states, or genuinely high-dimensional biological noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cross-modal transfer is not a lucky artifact but a consequence of shared latent components, so any measurement that reflects a systemic biological process should carry information about that process elsewhere in the body.
  • Eponymous disease labels are expected to dissolve into data-defined phenotypes with distinct trajectories, treatment vectors, and outcomes, enabling label-free precision medicine.
  • Continuous monitoring from wearables and smartphones, interpreted in latent space, should turn health care from episodic snapshots into trajectory navigation with early detection of inflection points.
  • Foundation models trained jointly across imaging, text, genomics, and sensors should organize around biological concepts rather than modality boundaries.
  • The geometric framework supplies a rationale for opportunistic screening and for individualized prognosis based on position along learned trajectories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the hypothesis holds, the natural failure mode of universal medical AI is not modality mismatch but insufficient shared biology: modalities with no common causal substrate should refuse to align in a shared space, giving a built-in test of whether a learned representation is real or spurious.
  • A testable extension follows: latent-space distance between a patient and a known responder cluster, computed without labels, should predict treatment-response improvement at least as well as a model trained on explicit disease labels; if it does not, the geometric content reduces to the labels it claims to replace.
  • The paper's hierarchical view suggests a concrete research programme: learn separate latent spaces for each biological scale and then estimate the inter-level mappings, since a single universal space is likely to be neither learnable nor clinically interpretable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspective paper proposes the "Latent Space Hypothesis": that diverse medical measurements (genomics, imaging, voice, clinical text, wearables) are different projections of a single underlying physiological state space, and that learning this shared geometric representation would enable unified medical AI, precision phenotyping, trajectory-based prognosis, and treatment navigation. The paper develops this idea through conceptual sections on manifold learning, tokenization, foundation models, cross-modal transfer, hierarchical multi-scale representations, interpretability, causality, continuous monitoring, and limitations. It draws on published examples such as retinal imaging predicting cardiovascular risk and voice analysis detecting Parkinson's disease, and it proposes mathematical notations (e.g., modalities as non-invertible projections of a complete state S; latent decompositions into shared and unique components) as illustrative formalizations rather than as derived results. The final sections acknowledge substantial open problems, including data scarcity, validation of discovered phenotypes, interpretability, and unproven biological assumptions.

Significance. If the strong version of the hypothesis were established, it would provide a principled explanation for cross-modal transfer in medicine and motivate a research program in geometric medical representation learning: diseases as regions, progression as trajectories, and treatments as vectors. The paper's strengths are its broad synthesis of recent foundation-model and multimodal literature, its explicit use of a hierarchical multi-scale caveat (Sec 3.1, Sec 8), and its unusually candid limitations chapter (Sec 12), which concedes that the central biological assumptions remain unproven. As a perspective, it does not claim to present new data or machine-checked proofs, and its value is chiefly as a conceptual framing document. The main weakness is that the evidence cited (joint embeddings, cross-modal prediction) is compatible with several weaker explanations, so the central identification of 'shared biological manifold' with 'learnable statistical alignment' is not established; the paper would benefit from clearly framing the hypothesis as falsifiable and specifying discriminating tests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec 5.4, Sec 6] The claim that multimodal foundation models are "existence proofs" of biological unity and that "the models are discovering, not constructing, biological unity" overstates what joint embedding demonstrates. A model that aligns retinal images with cardiovascular outcomes can succeed through shared measured confounders (age, sex, medications), population stratification, or linguistic priors in image-text pretraining, none of which require a single shared physiological manifold. To make this load-bearing, the paper should specify a discriminating experiment—for example, cross-modal transfer that persists after conditioning on all measured confounders, or transfer across genetically and demographically distinct populations—and state what result would falsify the shared-manifold reading.
  2. [Sec 6.3] The formulation M_i = f_i(S) + epsilon_i with latent decomposition Z_i = [Z_shared, Z_i_unique] is presented as explanatory, but it is a modeling assumption rather than a derived or testable consequence. Any paired dataset can be represented in this form by construction, so the equations do not by themselves explain why cross-modal transfer succeeds. The paper should either derive nontrivial, falsifiable consequences (for example, rank constraints on cross-modal covariance, invariance of the shared subspace under interventions, or sample-complexity predictions) or explicitly label this subsection as an illustrative model rather than an explanation.
  3. [Sec 3.2, Sec 8.1] The manuscript's own hierarchical caveats conflict with the "universal" single-manifold framing of Sec 1 and Fig 1. Section 8.1 states that forcing all biological scales into one space is "technically possible but practically useless," and Sec 3.2 emphasizes discrete mutations, phase transitions, and temporal heterogeneity that violate smooth manifold assumptions. The paper needs to reconcile these: is the hypothesis a single shared manifold with partial projections, or a hierarchy of coupled spaces? If the latter, the phrase "different projections of the same underlying biological reality" in Sec 1 must be reformulated, because each scale is then governed by its own geometry.
  4. [Sec 12.4] Section 12.4 concedes that the biological assumptions underlying the hypothesis "remain unproven," and Sec 12.2 highlights the difficulty of validating computationally discovered phenotypes. Given these concessions, the abstract and Sec 1 should present the Latent Space Hypothesis as a candidate explanation with explicit falsifiable predictions rather than as an established "answer" to why multimodal learning works. This rebalancing is important because the current strong phrasing—"The answer isn't that we've built clever algorithms—it's that these diverse measurements are different projections of the same underlying biological reality"—is not supported by the cited evidence, which is equally consistent with overlapping but non-identical biological processes and with confounded statistical alignment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Contents, Table of Key Concepts] There are several typographical and formatting issues: the table of contents reads "The F oundation of Biological Encoding," the notation table uses "T erm" instead of "Term," and Section 3 contains the grammatically incomplete sentence "However, it important to know when to apply manifold assumptions."
  2. [Sec 4] The sentence beginning "The elegance lies not in perfect discretization but in preserving clinically relevant information..." is repeated nearly verbatim in consecutive paragraphs; one occurrence should be removed.
  3. [Fig 2, Sec 2] The notation "R106" and "X ⊂R106" should be typeset as R^{10^6} to avoid confusion with a 106-dimensional space; the same issue appears in the input-space notation of Figure 2.
  4. [Key Concepts table, Sec 6.3] The "Complete physiological state S" is described as "ground truth" in the notation table, but the paper later acknowledges that S cannot be measured directly and is a theoretical construct; the table should reflect that S is an idealized entity, not an observable ground truth.
  5. [Sec 10] The dynamical equation dz/dt = f_theta(z,u,t) appears in Figure 11 but is not formally introduced in the text; adding a brief mathematical definition in Section 10.3 would make the notation self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper advances a hypothesis and supports it with external empirical results; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a perspective piece rather than a derivation or empirical study. Its central claim, that diverse medical measurements are projections of a shared biological state space, is explicitly framed as a hypothesis (Sec. 1 and throughout), not as a theorem derived from the cited evidence. The equations in Sec. 6.3 (M_i = f_i(S) + epsilon_i and Z_i = [Z_shared, Z_i_unique]) are presented as a modeling framework, and the paper itself notes that the biological assumptions 'remain unproven' (Sec. 12.4). Cross-modal transfer results (retinal imaging predicting cardiovascular events, voice detecting Parkinson's) are cited from independent external literature, not from the author's own fitted parameters or prior work. There are no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, no self-citation chain, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the author's prior publications. The paper also acknowledges the main epistemic weakness: that observed cross-modal correlations may not entail a single shared manifold, and that hierarchical or multi-scale representations may be needed instead. Because the load-bearing reasoning does not reduce to its own assumptions by construction, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework itself rests on the existence of a hidden unified state (S) and the manifold hypothesis; these are posited rather than demonstrated. The tuning parameters (lambda, gamma, lambda_hierarchical) are placeholders for future implementations, so the contribution is a formal vocabulary rather than a testable model.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_align = not specified
    Weight on shared-space alignment in the cross-modal objective (Sec 6.3); a conceptual hyperparameter, not fitted to data.
  • gamma_unique = not specified
    Weight on preserving modality-unique information (Sec 6.3); conceptual, not fitted.
  • lambda_hierarchical = not specified
    Coupling strength between adjacent latent levels in L_hierarchical (Sec 8.3); conceptual, not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manifold hypothesis: high-dimensional biological measurements lie on or near low-dimensional manifolds.
    Introduced in Sec 3 and echoed in Sec 12.4 as an unproven assumption. If false, the geometric framework of points/trajectories/vectors loses its foundation.
  • domain assumption Existence of a complete physiological state S that is the common cause of all modality observations (M_i = f_i(S)+epsilon_i).
    Formalized in Sec 6.3. The shared latent space Z_shared only captures transferable signal if such an S exists.
  • domain assumption Learnability: finite multimodal datasets suffice to recover the shared geometry, or federated learning can compensate for missing comprehensive data.
    Acknowledged as the 'data paradox' in Sec 12.1; without enough data the hypothesis cannot be validated.
  • domain assumption Temporal and population stability: relationships learned from population data apply to individuals and remain stable over time.
    Listed in Sec 12.4 as an unproven assumption; violated for new strains, changing environments, and rare variants.
invented entities (1)
  • Complete physiological state S
    purpose: Postulated ground-truth latent state from which all modality observations are projections (M_i = f_i(S)+epsilon_i)
    S is defined in Sec 6.3 as 'the ground truth of everything happening in a patient's body'. It is not directly observable and the paper gives no falsifiable prediction that would distinguish its existence from a purely correlational multi-view model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Latent Space Hypothesis: Toward Universal Medical Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RX6E4OI3

@misc{pith2026250604515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Latent Space Hypothesis: Toward Universal Medical Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RX6E4OI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04515}
}
read the original abstract

Medical data range from genomic sequences and retinal photographs to structured laboratory results and unstructured clinical narratives. Although these modalities appear disparate, many encode convergent information about a single underlying physiological state. The Latent Space Hypothesis frames each observation as a projection of a unified, hierarchically organized manifold -- much like shadows cast by the same three-dimensional object. Within this learned geometric representation, an individual's health status occupies a point, disease progression traces a trajectory, and therapeutic intervention corresponds to a directed vector. Interpreting heterogeneous evidence in a shared space provides a principled way to re-examine eponymous conditions -- such as Parkinson's or Crohn's -- that often mask multiple pathophysiological entities and involve broader anatomical domains than once believed. By revealing sub-trajectories and patient-specific directions of change, the framework supplies a quantitative rationale for personalised diagnosis, longitudinal monitoring, and tailored treatment, moving clinical practice away from grouping by potentially misleading labels toward navigation of each person's unique trajectory. Challenges remain -- bias amplification, data scarcity for rare disorders, privacy, and the correlation-causation divide -- but scale-aware encoders, continual learning on longitudinal data streams, and perturbation-based validation offer plausible paths forward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The latent space hypothesis: discovering hidden unity in medical data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dimensionality reduction and semantic organization. High-dimensional medical data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The richness of biological measurements across scales. Top: Different medical tests [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The manifold hypothesis in medical data. High-dimensional measurements (left) ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectrum of tokenization in biological data. Top: DNA appears discrete but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multimodal tokenization strategy. Different medical data types are converted into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graph-structured medical data naturally embeds into latent spaces. Each network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross-modal transfer learning through shared latent spaces. Different measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hierarchical organization of latent spaces in medical AI. Biological systems exhibit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Three complementary perspectives on relationships in latent space. Correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The process of learning health dynamics from population data. Top: As data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The transformation from episodic to continuous health monitoring. Traditional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3.Nature, 630(8016):493– 500, 2024

    Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3.Nature, 630(8016):493– 500, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.New England Journal of Medicine, 391(15):1456–1467, 2024

    Hossein Akbarialiabad, Eric C Schneider, Bruce Leff, Ali Rafei, Mahtab Shirazi, and Mohammad Hossein Taghrir. Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.New England Journal of Medicine, 391(15):1456–1467, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Deep variational information bottleneck

    Alexander A Alemi, Ian Fischer, Joshua V Dillon, and Kevin Murphy. Deep variational information bottleneck. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Publicly available clinical bert embeddings

    Emily Alsentzer, John Murphy, William Boag, Wei-Hung Weng, Di Jindi, Tristan Nau- mann, and Matthew McDermott. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings. InProceed- ings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop, pages 72–78, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    To explain or not to explain?—artificial intelligence explainability in clinical decision support systems.PLoS Digital Health, 1(2):e0000016, 2022

    Julia Amann, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena, Dietmar Frey, and Vince I Madai. To explain or not to explain?—artificial intelligence explainability in clinical decision support systems.PLoS Digital Health, 1(2):e0000016, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Effective gene expression prediction from sequence by integrating long-range in- teractions.Nature Methods, 18(10):1196–1203, 2021

    ˇZiga Avsec, Vikram Agarwal, Daniel Visentin, Joseph R Ledsam, Agnieszka Grabska- Barwinska, Kyle R Taylor, Yannis Assael, John Jumper, Pushmeet Kohli, and David R Kelley. Effective gene expression prediction from sequence by integrating long-range in- teractions.Nature Methods, 18(10):1196–1203, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Big self- supervised models advance medical image classification

    Shekoofeh Azizi, Basil Mustafa, Fiona Ryan, Zachary Beaver, Jan Freyberg, Jonathan Deaton, Aaron Loh, Alan Karthikesalingam, Simon Kornblith, Ting Chen, et al. Big self- supervised models advance medical image classification. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3478–3488, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine.Future Healthcare Journal, 8(2):e188– e194, 2021

    Junaid Bajwa, Usman Munir, Aditya Nori, and Bryan Williams. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine.Future Healthcare Journal, 8(2):e188– e194, 2021

    2021

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical medicine, 2023

    Andrew L Beam, Jeffrey M Drazen, Isaac S Kohane, Tze-Yun Leong, Arjun K Manrai, and Eric J Rubin. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical medicine, 2023. New England Journal of Medicine, 388(13):1220–1221, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using umap.Nature Biotechnology, 37(1):38–40, 2019

    Etienne Becht, Leland McInnes, John Healy, Charles-Antoine Dutertre, Immanuel WH Kwok, Lai Guan Ng, Florent Ginhoux, and Evan W Newell. Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using umap.Nature Biotechnology, 37(1):38–40, 2019. 44

    2019

  3. [11]

    Representation learning: a review and new perspectives.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(8):1798–1828, 2013

    Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: a review and new perspectives.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(8):1798–1828, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    A remote digital memory composite to detect cognitive impairment in memory clinic samples in unsupervised settings using mobile devices.npj Digital Medicine, 7(1):79, 2024

    David Berron, Gabriel Ziegler, Paula Vieweg, Olivier Billette, Emrah D¨ uzel, Wenzel Glanz, Scott A Small, Arturo Cardenas-Blanco, Annika Spottke, Stefan Teipel, et al. A remote digital memory composite to detect cognitive impairment in memory clinic samples in unsupervised se...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Applied body-fluid analysis by wearable devices.Nature, 636(8044):57–68, 2024

    No´ e Brasier, Xuan Wang, Fanyu Zhu, Ido Atzmon, Avishay Hayek, Ran Rotkvich, Akash Parkash, Hsun-Jen Tseng, Douglas Rassier, Patrick Pirrotte, et al. Applied body-fluid analysis by wearable devices.Nature, 636(8044):57–68, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Geometric deep learning: grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13478, 2021

    Michael M Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Taco Cohen, and Petar Veliˇ ckovi´ c. Geometric deep learning: grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13478, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 34(4):18–42, 2017

    Michael M Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Yann LeCun, Arthur Szlam, and Pierre Vandergheynst. Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 34(4):18–42, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    The uk biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data.Nature, 562(7726):203–209, 2018

    Clare Bycroft, Colin Freeman, Desislava Petkova, Gavin Band, Lloyd T Elliott, Kevin Sharp, Allan Motyer, Damjan Vukcevic, Olivier Delaneau, Jared O’Connell, et al. The uk biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data.Nature, 562(7726):203–209, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    Jieneng Chen, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Xiangde Luo, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Le Lu, Alan L Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. Transunet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Machine learning and prediction in medicine—beyond the peak of inflated expectations.New England Journal of Medicine, 376(26):2507–2509, 2017

    Jonathan H Chen and Steven M Asch. Machine learning and prediction in medicine—beyond the peak of inflated expectations.New England Journal of Medicine, 376(26):2507–2509, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Multimodal co-attention transformer for survival pre- diction in gigapixel whole slide images.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(1):1–11, 2022

    Richard J Chen, Ming Y Lu, Jingwen Wang, Drew FK Williamson, Scott J Rodig, Neal I Lindeman, and Faisal Mahmood. Multimodal co-attention transformer for survival pre- diction in gigapixel whole slide images.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(1):1–11, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Manifold learning of four- dimensional neuroimaging data: A review of methods and applications.Medical Image Analysis, 80:102520, 2022

    Xi Chen, Hong Wang, Tianfu Zhang, and Dinggang Shen. Manifold learning of four- dimensional neuroimaging data: A review of methods and applications.Medical Image Analysis, 80:102520, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Gram: graph-based attention model for healthcare representation learning

    Edward Choi, Mohammad Taha Bahadori, Le Song, Walter F Stewart, and Jimeng Sun. Gram: graph-based attention model for healthcare representation learning. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 787–795. ACM, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Biases in medical artificial intelligence.PLoS Digital Health, 3(10):e0000651, 2024

    Jennifer L Cross and Michael A Choma. Biases in medical artificial intelligence.PLoS Digital Health, 3(10):e0000651, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    scgpt: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative ai.Nature Methods, 21(8):1470–1480, 2024

    Haotian Cui, Chloe Wang, Hassaan Maan, Kuan Pang, Fengning Luo, Nan Duan, and Bo Wang. scgpt: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative ai.Nature Methods, 21(8):1470–1480, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Health equity and ethical considerations in using artificial intelli- gence in public health and medicine.Preventing Chronic Disease, 21:240245, 2024

    Irene Dankwa-Mullan. Health equity and ethical considerations in using artificial intelli- gence in public health and medicine.Preventing Chronic Disease, 21:240245, 2024. 45

    2024

  17. [25]

    Ai and the democratization of knowledge

    Christophe Dessimoz and Paul D Thomas. Ai and the democratization of knowledge. Scientific Data, 11(1):268, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, pages 4171...

    2019

  19. [27]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. InProceedings of the...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Foundation models build on chatgpt tech to learn the fundamental language of biology.Nature Biotechnology, 42(9):1323–1325, 2024

    Michael Eisenstein. Foundation models build on chatgpt tech to learn the fundamental language of biology.Nature Biotechnology, 42(9):1323–1325, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Assessment of performance, interpretability, and explainability in ar- tificial intelligence-based health technologies: what healthcare stakeholders need to know

    Lama Farah, Jocelyn M Murris, Isabelle Borget, Agathe Guilloux, Nicolas Martelli, and Sandrine Katsahian. Assessment of performance, interpretability, and explainability in ar- tificial intelligence-based health technologies: what healthcare stakeholders need to know. Mayo Cli...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Testing the manifold hy- pothesis.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(4):983–1049, 2016

    Charles Fefferman, Sanjoy Mitter, and Hariharan Narayanan. Testing the manifold hy- pothesis.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(4):983–1049, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Causal machine learning for healthcare and precision medicine.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(2):206–228, 2024

    Stefan Feuerriegel, Dennis Frauen, and Valentyn Melnychuk. Causal machine learning for healthcare and precision medicine.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(2):206–228, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Self- supervised learning from 100 million medical images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01283, 2022

    Florin C Ghesu, Bogdan Georgescu, Awais Mansoor, Youngjin Yoo, Dominik Neumann, Parmeshwar Patel, RS Vishwanath, James M Balter, Yun Cao, Sasa Grbic, et al. Self- supervised learning from 100 million medical images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01283, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Parkinson disease detection from speech articulation neurome- chanics.Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 11:56, 2017

    Pedro G´ omez-Vilda, Jiˇ r ´ ı Mekyska, Jos´ e M Ferr´ andez, Daniel Palacios-Alonso, Andr´ es G´ omez-Rodellar, Victoria Rodellar-Biarge, Zolt´ an Galaz, Zdenek Smekal, Ilona Eliasova, Milena Kostalova, et al. Parkinson disease detection from speech articulation neurome- chan...

    2017

  26. [34]

    A guide to machine learning for biologists.Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 23(1):40–55, 2022

    Joe G Greener, Shaun M Kandathil, Lewis Moffat, and David T Jones. A guide to machine learning for biologists.Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 23(1):40–55, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Domain-specific language model pretrain- ing for biomedical natural language processing.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 3(1):1–23, 2022

    Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. Domain-specific language model pretrain- ing for biomedical natural language processing.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 3(1):1–23, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Large-scale foundation model on single-cell transcriptomics.Nature Methods, 21(8):1481–1491, 2024

    Minsheng Hao, Jiaqi Gong, Xin Zeng, Chiming Liu, Yucheng Guo, Xingyi Cheng, Taifeng Wang, Jianzhu Ma, Le Song, and Xuegong Zhang. Large-scale foundation model on single-cell transcriptomics.Nature Methods, 21(8):1481–1491, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Yucheng Tang, Vishwesh Nath, Dong Yang, Andriy Myronenko, Ben- nett Landman, Holger R Roth, and Daguang Xu. Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 574–584, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Deep residual learning for im- age recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for im- age recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 46

    2016

  31. [39]

    Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks.Science, 313(5786):504–507, 2006

    Geoffrey E Hinton and Ruslan R Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks.Science, 313(5786):504–507, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Caus- ability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine.WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 9(4):e1312, 2019

    Andreas Holzinger, Georg Langs, Helmut Denk, Kurt Zatloukal, and Heimo M¨ uller. Caus- ability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine.WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 9(4):e1312, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Self-supervised learning for medical image classification: a systematic review and implementation guidelines.npj Digital Medicine, 6(1):74, 2023

    Shih-Cheng Huang, Anuj Pareek, Saeed Seyyedi, Imon Banerjee, and Matthew P Lun- gren. Self-supervised learning for medical image classification: a systematic review and implementation guidelines.npj Digital Medicine, 6(1):74, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Causal machine learning: a survey and open problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15475, 2022

    Jean Kaddour, Aengus Lynch, Qi Liu, Matt J Kusner, and Ricardo Silva. Causal machine learning: a survey and open problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15475, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence.BMC Medicine, 17(1):195, 2019

    Christopher J Kelly, Alan Karthikesalingam, Mustafa Suleyman, Greg Corrado, and Do- minic King. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence.BMC Medicine, 17(1):195, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    An introduction to variational autoencoders.Foun- dations and Trends in Machine Learning, 12(4):307–392, 2019

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. An introduction to variational autoencoders.Foun- dations and Trends in Machine Learning, 12(4):307–392, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Initialization is critical for preserving global data structure in both t-sne and umap.Nature Biotechnology, 39(2):156–157, 2021

    Dmitry Kobak and Philipp Berens. Initialization is critical for preserving global data structure in both t-sne and umap.Nature Biotechnology, 39(2):156–157, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Digital biomarkers for alzheimer’s dementia: the mobile/wearable devices opportunity.npj Digital Medicine, 2(1):9, 2019

    Lampros C Kourtis, Oliver B Regele, Justin M Wright, and Graham B Jones. Digital biomarkers for alzheimer’s dementia: the mobile/wearable devices opportunity.npj Digital Medicine, 2(1):9, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Learning causal networks from observational data through graph neural networks.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(10):1101–1115, 2023

    Charles Lagemann, Kevin Lagemann, Armeen Taeb, and Peter B¨ uhlmann. Learning causal networks from observational data through graph neural networks.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(10):1101–1115, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Deep learning.Nature, 521(7553):436– 444, 2015

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning.Nature, 521(7553):436– 444, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining.Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240, 2020

    Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining.Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine.New England Journal of Medicine, 388(13):1233–1239, 2023

    Peter Lee, S´ ebastien Bubeck, and Joseph Petro. Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine.New England Journal of Medicine, 388(13):1233–1239, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Li Ying Li, Ting Zhang, Mun Ling Chua, Jocelyn Hui Lin Yu, John Pastor Ansah, David Chee Chin Soh, Charumathi Sabanayagam Chong, and Gerald Choon Huat Koh. Predic- tion of cardiovascular markers and diseases using retinal fundus images and deep learning: a systematic scoping r...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Chunfeng Lian, Mingxia Liu, Li Wang, and Dinggang Shen. Hierarchical fully convolu- tional network for joint atrophy localization and alzheimer’s disease diagnosis using struc- tural mri.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42(4):880– 893, 2020. 47

    2020

  46. [54]

    The uk biobank imaging enhancement of 100,000 participants.Nature Communi- cations, 11(1):2624, 2020

    Thomas J Littlejohns, Jo Holliday, Lorna M Gibson, Steve Garratt, Niels Oesingmann, Fidel Alfaro-Almagro, Jimmy D Bell, Chris Boultwood, Rory Collins, Megan C Conroy, et al. The uk biobank imaging enhancement of 100,000 participants.Nature Communi- cations, 11(1):2624, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30:6446–6456, 2017

    Christos Louizos, Uri Shalit, Joris M Mooij, David Sontag, Richard Zemel, and Max Welling. Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30:6446–6456, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Steven A Lubitz, Atlas Z Faranesh, Cristina Selvaggi, Steven J Atlas, David D McManus, Daniel E Singer, Sherry Pagoto, Michael V McConnell, Andreas Pantelopoulos, and An- drea S Foulkes. Rationale and design of a large population study to validate software for the assessment o...

    2021

  49. [57]

    Using deep learning to model the hierarchical structure and function of a cell.Nature Methods, 15(4):290–298, 2018

    Jianzhu Ma, Michael Ku Yu, Samson Fong, Keiichiro Ono, Eric Sage, Barry Demchak, Roded Sharan, and Trey Ideker. Using deep learning to model the hierarchical structure and function of a cell.Nature Methods, 15(4):290–298, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Visualizing structure and transitions in high-dimensional biological data

    Kevin R Moon, David van Dijk, Zheng Wang, Scott Gigante, Daniel B Burkhardt, William S Chen, Kristina Yim, Antonia van den Elzen, Matthew J Hirn, Ronald R Coif- man, et al. Visualizing structure and transitions in high-dimensional biological data. Nature Biotechnology, 37(12):...

    2019

  51. [59]

    Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence.Nature, 616(7956):259–265, 2023

    Michael Moor, Oishi Banerjee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Harlan M Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric J Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence.Nature, 616(7956):259–265, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15189, 2023

    Michael Moor, Qian Huang, Shirley Wu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Cyril Zakka, Yash Dalmia, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Pranav Rajpurkar, and Jure Leskovec. Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15189, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Urs J Muehlematter, Paola Daniore, and Kerstin N Vokinger. Approval of artificial intel- ligence and machine learning-based medical devices in the usa and europe (2015–20): a comparative analysis.The Lancet Digital Health, 3(3):e195–e203, 2021

    2015

  54. [62]

    A foundation model for cancer imaging biomarker discovery.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(3):354–367, 2024

    Saarthak Pai, Dennis Bontempi, Ibrahim Hadzic, Vasco Prudente, Matejka Sokac, Tafadzwa L Chaunzwa, Simon Bernatz, Ahmed Hosny, Raymond H Mak, Nicolai J Birk- bak, et al. A foundation model for cancer imaging biomarker discovery.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(3):354–367, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation.New England Journal of Medicine, 381(20):1909–1917, 2019

    Marco V Perez, Kenneth W Mahaffey, Haley Hedlin, John S Rumsfeld, Ariadna Garcia, Todd Ferris, Vidhya Balasubramanian, Andrea M Russo, Amol Rajmane, Lauren Cheung, et al. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation.New England Journal of Medicine, 38...

    1909

  56. [64]

    Ai in health and medicine.Nature Medicine, 28(1):31–38, 2022

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Emma Chen, Oishi Banerjee, and Eric J Topol. Ai in health and medicine.Nature Medicine, 28(1):31–38, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    The current and future state of ai interpre- tation of medical images.New England Journal of Medicine, 388(21):1981–1990, 2023

    Pranav Rajpurkar and Matthew P Lungren. The current and future state of ai interpre- tation of medical images.New England Journal of Medicine, 388(21):1981–1990, 2023

    1981

  58. [66]

    Alexander Rives, Joshua Meier, Tom Sercu, Siddharth Goyal, Zeming Lin, Jason Liu, Demi Guo, Myle Ott, C Lawrence Zitnick, Jerry Ma, et al. Biological structure and func- tion emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences.Proceed- ings of the Nation...

    2021

  59. [67]

    Toward a foundation model of causal cell and tissue biology with a pertur- bation cell and tissue atlas.Cell, 187(17):4520–4545, 2024

    Jennifer E Rood, Anna Hupalowska, Christoph Hafemeister, Sergio Abraham, Stacey Allen, Shahar Alon, Emma Aranda-Michel, Sean C Bendall, Megan Boland, Amanda Brickey, et al. Toward a foundation model of causal cell and tissue biology with a pertur- bation cell and tissue atlas....

    2024

  60. [68]

    Learning representations by back-propagating errors.Nature, 323(6088):533–536, 1986

    David E Rumelhart, Geoffrey E Hinton, and Ronald J Williams. Learning representations by back-propagating errors.Nature, 323(6088):533–536, 1986

    1986

  61. [69]

    Jan Rusz, Jan Hlavniˇ cka, Tereza Tykalova, Michal Novotny, Petr Dusek, Karel Sonka, and Evˇ zen R ˚ uˇ ziˇ cka. Smartphone allows capture of speech abnormalities associated with high risk of developing parkinson’s disease.IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation...

    2018

  62. [70]

    Artificial intelligence in u.s

    Nikhil R Sahni and Brian Carrus. Artificial intelligence in u.s. health care delivery.New England Journal of Medicine, 389(4):348–358, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    Toward causal representation learning

    Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf, Francesco Locatello, Stefan Bauer, Nan Rosemary Ke, Nal Kalch- brenner, Anirudh Goyal, and Yoshua Bengio. Toward causal representation learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5):612–634, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    A nationwide network of health ai assurance laboratories.JAMA, 331(3):245, 2024

    Nigam H Shah, John D Halamka, Suchi Saria, Michael Pencina, Troy Tazbaz, Micky Tri- pathi, Alison Callahan, Hailey Carr, Nate Brown, Kathleen Pletcher, et al. A nationwide network of health ai assurance laboratories.JAMA, 331(3):245, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Transformers in medical imaging: A survey

    Fahad Shamshad, Salman Khan, Syed Waqas Zamir, Muhammad Haris Khan, Munawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Huazhu Fu. Transformers in medical imaging: A survey. Medical Image Analysis, 88:102802, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    An overview of variational autoencoders for source separation, finance, and bio-signal applications.Entropy, 24(1):55, 2022

    Anupriya Singh and Tokunbo Ogunfunmi. An overview of variational autoencoders for source separation, finance, and bio-signal applications.Entropy, 24(1):55, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

    Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

    2023

  68. [76]

    Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617, 2023

    Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, Darlene Neal, et al. Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Development and validation of deep learning models for screening multiple abnormal findings in retinal fundus images.Ophthalmology, 127(1):85–94, 2020

    Jaemin Son, Joo Young Shin, Hoon Dong Kim, Kyu-Hwan Jung, Kyu Hyung Park, and Sang Jun Park. Development and validation of deep learning models for screening multiple abnormal findings in retinal fundus images.Ophthalmology, 127(1):85–94, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    Multimodal medical code tokenizer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04397, 2025

    Xin Su, Lei Zhang, and Chen Wang. Multimodal medical code tokenizer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04397, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Multimodal artificial intelligence in digital health.Nature Medicine, 30(6):1509–1523, 2024

    Shenghao Tang, Harshal Patel, Matloob Khushi, and Yu Rong. Multimodal artificial intelligence in digital health.Nature Medicine, 30(6):1509–1523, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology.Nature, 618(7965):616–624, 2023

    Christina V Theodoris, Liang Xiao, Anant Chopra, Mark D Chaffin, Zeina R Al Sayed, Matthew C Hill, Helene Mantineo, Elizabeth M Brydon, Zexian Zeng, X Shirley Liu, et al. Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology.Nature, 618(7965):616–624, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Large language models in medicine.Nature Medicine, 29(8):1930–1940, 2023

    Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutier- rez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. Large language models in medicine.Nature Medicine, 29(8):1930–1940, 2023. 49

    1930

  74. [82]

    Complex hierarchical structures in single-cell genomics data unveiled by deep hyperbolic manifold learning

    Tian Tian, Jie Zhang, Xiang Lin, Zhi Wei, and Hakon Hakonarson. Complex hierarchical structures in single-cell genomics data unveiled by deep hyperbolic manifold learning. Genome Research, 33(2):232–246, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    Non-fungible tokens for the management of health data.Nature Medicine, 29(2):287–288, 2023

    Daniel SW Ting and Zhen Ling Teo. Non-fungible tokens for the management of health data.Nature Medicine, 29(2):287–288, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    Deep learning and the information bottleneck prin- ciple

    Naftali Tishby and Noga Zaslavsky. Deep learning and the information bottleneck prin- ciple. In2015 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  77. [85]

    Towards generalist biomedical ai.NEJM AI, 1(3):AIoa2300138, 2024

    Tao Tu, Shekoofeh Azizi, Danny Driess, Mike Schaekermann, Mohamed Amin, Pi-Chuan Chang, Andrew Carroll, Chuck Lau, Ryutaro Tanno, Ira Ktena, et al. Towards generalist biomedical ai.NEJM AI, 1(3):AIoa2300138, 2024

    2024

  78. [86]

    Rationale and design of a large-scale, app-based study to assess cardiac arrhythmia using a smartwatch

    Mintu P Turakhia, Manisha Desai, Haley Hedlin, Amol Rajmane, Nisha Talati, Todd Ferris, Sumbul Desai, Divya Nag, Mithun Patel, Peter Kowey, et al. Rationale and design of a large-scale, app-based study to assess cardiac arrhythmia using a smartwatch. American Heart Journal, 20...

    2019

  79. [87]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Artificial intelligence-enabled device software func- tions: Lifecycle management and marketing submission recommendations - draft guidance for industry and fda staff, 2025

    2025

  80. [88]

    Nvae: A deep hierarchical variational autoencoder.Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:19667–19679, 2020

    Arash Vahdat and Jan Kautz. Nvae: A deep hierarchical variational autoencoder.Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:19667–19679, 2020

    2020

  81. [89]

    De- tecting parkinson’s disease from sustained phonation and speech signals.PLoS ONE, 12(10):e0185613, 2017

    Evaldas Vaiciukynas, Antanas Verikas, Adas Gelzinis, and Marija Bacauskiene. De- tecting parkinson’s disease from sustained phonation and speech signals.PLoS ONE, 12(10):e0185613, 2017

    2017

  82. [90]

    Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation

    Jeya Maria Jose Valanarasu, Poojan Oza, Ilker Hacihaliloglu, and Vishal M Patel. Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021, pages 36–46. Springer, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (xai) in deep learning-based medical image analysis

    Bas HM van der Velden, Hugo J Kuijf, Kenneth GA Gilhuijs, and Max A Viergever. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai) in deep learning-based medical image analysis. Medical Image Analysis, 79:102470, 2022

    2022

  84. [92]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  85. [93]

    Considerations for equitable deployment of artificial intelligence for medical diagnosis.New England Journal of Medicine, 391(14):1348–1352, 2024

    Adam Q Wang and Minh Nguyen. Considerations for equitable deployment of artificial intelligence for medical diagnosis.New England Journal of Medicine, 391(14):1348–1352, 2024

    2024

  86. [94]

    A comprehen- sive review of data-driven approaches in imaging genomics.Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24(3):bbad178, 2023

    Shuo Wang, Han Zhang, Ming Liu, Dinggang Chen, and Wei Zhang. A comprehen- sive review of data-driven approaches in imaging genomics.Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24(3):bbad178, 2023

    2023

  87. [95]

    Transbts: Multimodal brain tumor segmentation using transformer

    Wenxuan Wang, Chen Chen, Meng Ding, Hong Yu, Sen Zha, and Jiangyun Li. Transbts: Multimodal brain tumor segmentation using transformer. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021, pages 109–119. Springer, 2021. 50

    2021

  88. [96]

    An adversarial training frame- work for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning.npj Digital Medicine, 6(1):55, 2023

    Jenny Yang, Andrew AS Soltan, and David A Clifton. An adversarial training frame- work for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning.npj Digital Medicine, 6(1):55, 2023

    2023

  89. [97]

    Gatortron: A large clinical language model to unlock patient information from unstruc- tured electronic health records.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03540, 2022

    Xi Yang, Aokun Chen, Nima PourNejatian, Hoo Chang Shin, Kaleb E Smith, Christo- pher Parisien, Colin Compas, Cheryl Martin, Anthony B Costa, Mona G Flores, et al. Gatortron: A large clinical language model to unlock patient information from unstruc- tured electronic health rec...

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Dimensionality reduction by umap reinforces sample heterogeneity analysis in bulk transcriptomic data.Nature Communications, 14(1):1145, 2023

    Yinlei Yang, Hao Sun, Yuchen Zhang, Tongxuan Zhang, Jianping Gong, Yunbo Wei, Yong-Gang Duan, Minglei Shu, Yuchen Yang, Di Wu, et al. Dimensionality reduction by umap reinforces sample heterogeneity analysis in bulk transcriptomic data.Nature Communications, 14(1):1145, 2023

    2023

  91. [99]

    Joseph Keunhong Yi, Tyler Hyungtaek Rim, Sungha Park, Sung Soo Kim, Hyeon Chang Kim, Chan Joo Lee, Hyeonmin Kim, Geunyoung Lee, James SG Lim, Yih Chung Tan, et al. Validation of a deep-learning-based retinal biomarker (reti-cvd) in the prediction of cardiovascular disease: dat...

    2023

  92. [100]

    Medical artificial intelligence and human values.New England Journal of Medicine, 390(21):1895–1904, 2024

    Kun-Hsing Yu, Andrew L Beam, and Isaac S Kohane. Medical artificial intelligence and human values.New England Journal of Medicine, 390(21):1895–1904, 2024

    1904

  93. [101]

    Translation of genotype to phenotype by a hierarchy of cell subsystems.Cell Systems, 2(2):77–88, 2016

    Michael Ku Yu, Michael Kramer, Janusz Dutkowski, Rohith Srivas, Katherine Licon, Jason Kreisberg, Cherie T Ng, Nevan Krogan, Roded Sharan, and Trey Ideker. Translation of genotype to phenotype by a hierarchy of cell subsystems.Cell Systems, 2(2):77–88, 2016

    2016

  94. [102]

    Pinnacle generates context-specific protein representations using geometric deep learning.Nature Methods, 21(9):1627–1637, 2024

    Hao Zeng and David K Gifford. Pinnacle generates context-specific protein representations using geometric deep learning.Nature Methods, 21(9):1627–1637, 2024

    2024

  95. [103]

    Biomedclip: a multimodal biomedical foundation model pretrained from fifteen million scientific image-text pairs

    Sheng Zhang, Yanbo Xu, Naoto Usuyama, Jaspreet Bagga, Robert Tinn, Sam Preston, Rajesh Rao, Mu Wei, Naveen Valluri, Cliff Wong, et al. Biomedclip: a multimodal biomedical foundation model pretrained from fifteen million scientific image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00...

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Machine learning for integrating data in biology and medicine: Principles, practice, and opportunities.Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(6):282–295, 2019

    Marinka Zitnik, Francis Nguyen, Bo Wang, Jure Leskovec, Anna Goldenberg, and Michael M Hoffman. Machine learning for integrating data in biology and medicine: Principles, practice, and opportunities.Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(6):282–295, 2019

    2019

  97. [105]

    Role of artificial intelligence in healthcare settings within developing countries: a comprehensive review.Health Science Reports, 15(4):e21501319241245847, 2024

    Vishal Zuhair, Areesha Babar, Rayyan Rafid Ali, Malik Olatunde Oduoye, Isreal Ayobami Adeniji, Chris Ochola, and Shahzad Maroof. Role of artificial intelligence in healthcare settings within developing countries: a comprehensive review.Health Science Reports, 15(4):e2150131924...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.