Temporal Flow Matching for Learning Spatio-Temporal Trajectories in 4D Longitudinal Medical Imaging

Constantin Ulrich; David Zimmerer; Klaus Maier-Hein; Maximilian Rokuss; Nico Albert Disch; Robin Peretzke; Saikat Roy; Yannick Kirchhoff

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Temporal Flow Matching for Learning Spatio-Temporal Trajectories in 4D Longitudinal Medical Imaging

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Temporal Flow Matching predicts future medical images by learning a velocity field between context scans and a repeated target scan, modeling only the changes; it outperforms the last-context-image baseline on three longitudinal datasets.

desk verdict A sensible, well-motivated adaptation of flow matching to longitudinal medical imaging, but the claimed consistent superiority over the Last Context Image baseline is not supported by the reported statistics, and there is a likely typo in the results table. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21580 v1 pith:6ZGDBZ6O submitted 2025-08-29 cs.CV

Nico Albert Disch , Yannick Kirchhoff , Robin Peretzke , Maximilian Rokuss , Saikat Roy , Constantin Ulrich , David Zimmerer , Klaus Maier-Hein This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords temporalflowmatchinggenerativemodelinglongitudinalmedicalimaging4Dimagepredictiondifferenceirregulartimeseriesspatio-temporal

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

Spatio-temporal prediction in medical imaging faces a strong trivial baseline: because anatomy changes slowly, simply returning the most recent scan often beats sophisticated video-prediction models. This paper introduces Temporal Flow Matching (TFM), a generative method that trains a network to predict the velocity field that transports a patient's past scans into a future scan, so the learned target is the difference between context and target rather than the full image. On three public longitudinal datasets—cardiac cine-MRI, stroke perfusion CT, and glioblastoma MRI—TFM reports better NRMSE/SSIM/PSNR than the last-context-image baseline and outperforms natural-image spatio-temporal baselines (ConvLSTM, SimVP, ViViT). The authors argue this establishes a new baseline for 4D medical image prediction and that difference modeling explains the gain, since pixel metrics are dominated by static anatomy.

What carries the argument

The central identity is the flow-matching velocity under linear interpolation: with X0=I′ (the filled context sequence) and X1=[Itarget,…,Itarget] (T copies), the interpolation Xτ=(1−τ)X0+τX1 has derivative dXτ/dτ=X1−X0=Itarget−I′. The network vθ(Xτ,τ) is trained to predict this velocity, which is exactly the spatio-temporal difference; the paper calls this Difference Modeling and notes it is a pure change of output space, imposing no architectural constraint. Inference integrates the learned field from τ=0 to 1, and the result is reduced by taking the last or mean time channel. Sparsity Filling—replacing missing context frames with the nearest available scan—keeps the velocity fields homoge

What would settle it

Re-run the three benchmarks under several different fixed validation-mask seeds and check whether TFM's margin over LCI persists in every rerun; if the advantage shrinks or reverses when the masks change, the claimed general superiority is a protocol artifact. A stronger test is an external longitudinal cohort acquired at a different site or scanner, since the velocity field must extrapolate to patients and acquisition conditions never seen in training.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a flow-matching model operating on the stacked sequence of context images, with the target image repeated T times, can learn a transport whose velocity is exactly the temporal difference Itarget−I′; training the network to predict this difference lets the model focus on changes rather than static content. This extends flow matching to irregularly sampled 3D time series via dimension padding and sparsity filling. Empirically the paper finds that TFM consistently surpasses both the last-context-image heuristic and spatio-temporal methods from natural imaging on ACDC, ISLES, and Lumiere, including on the hard small-cohort Lumiere dataset, and that the LCI+FM variant (same

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a velocity field trained on small, heterogeneous patient cohorts—as few as 48 training cases on Lumiere—generalizes to unseen patients, and that the edge over returning the last scan is not an artifact of the particular fixed masking seed and validation split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single 3D UNet trained end-to-end can predict full-resolution future volumes from multiple prior scans, without a separate temporal encoder or latent compression.
TFM inherits a cheap lower bound: if the context is uninformative, predicting the last available scan is a special case of the flow, so errors do not explode beyond the trivial baseline.
The method tolerates missing and irregularly spaced acquisitions: random masking during training plus sparsity filling keeps performance stable, and masking early context frames at inference barely affects quality.
Removing sparsity filling degrades NRMSE from 0.0261 to 0.0444 on the ACDC validation set, so the filling strategy is load-bearing for the reported results.
Aggregation by mean or by the last predicted time channel gives equivalent results, and a lightweight no-attention UNet performs nearly as well, suggesting the framework is not tied to a specific backbone.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: If difference modeling is the active ingredient, then change-focused evaluation (ROI metrics, perceptual metrics on temporal residuals) should reveal larger gains than pixel-level NRMSE/PSNR, which are dominated by unchanged anatomy.
Editorial inference: The formulation could be extended to continuous clinical time by replacing the abstract interpolation step τ with the actual elapsed time between scans; that would make the model directly usable for predicting a scan at any requested follow-up date.
Editorial inference: The fixed-mask validation protocol the authors introduce is itself a transferable practice for small medical datasets: masking realizations should be frozen before model selection, otherwise the trivial baseline's score fluctuates and 'best epoch' becomes arbitrary.
Editorial inference: Since TFM showed the largest absolute gains on the smallest cohort (Lumiere), a plausible testable hypothesis is that difference modeling degrades gracefully with training set size; testing on progressively smaller subsets of a large longitudinal dataset would quantify that.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is sound. The authors take flow matching and adapt it to irregularly sampled 3D medical time series by padding the context dimension, filling missing frames with the nearest available image, and letting the target be replicated across the same dimension. That last move makes the velocity field literally the difference between context and target, which they call Difference Modeling. It is a simple formulation, but it is well matched to the problem: in these datasets temporal changes are small, and the LCI baseline is strong. The sparsity filling trick is straightforward and clearly helps in the ablations. The fixed validation mask protocol is a thoughtful response to a real pitfall with small validation sets. The LCI+FM experiment, where single-channel FM collapses, is genuinely informative and not something a lazy author would include.

The soft spots are mostly empirical. The headline claim that TFM "consistently surpasses" LCI is stronger than the numbers justify. On ACDC the NRMSE gap is 0.016 with a standard deviation of 0.012 across three runs; on Lumiere the SSIM gap is 0.4 points with a standard deviation of 1.2. No significance tests, no per-subject error distributions, no confidence intervals. With test sets of 14 to 50 subjects, the evidence for a real advantage is suggestive, not conclusive. The baselines are also weak: SimVP, ConvLSTM, and ViViT are natural-image methods, dropped into 3D without much adaptation, and they perform far below LCI. The paper lists medical baselines like NODER and ImageFlowNet in Table 1 but never compares against them, so "first comprehensive benchmark" is an overstatement.

There is also a likely data error. In Table 2, the SimVP row for ISLES is identical to the SimVP row for ACDC (NRMSE 0.124, SSIM 52.8, PSNR 21.21, same standard deviations). That looks like a copy-paste mistake, and it needs to be fixed before the paper is taken at face value.

That said, the method is clearly explained, the ablations are useful, and the limitations section is honest about data scarcity and resolution issues. The central idea is not novel enough to change the field, but it is a solid engineering contribution that could become a common baseline for medical trajectory prediction.

This paper deserves a serious referee. It needs a revision that adds significance testing or per-subject analysis, fixes the table, and ideally compares with at least one medical imaging baseline. I would read the revised version carefully, and I would probably cite it if I worked on longitudinal medical images.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Temporal Flow Matching (TFM), a flow-matching framework for predicting a target 3D medical image from a sequence of irregularly sampled historical scans. The method pads all context images to the same temporal dimension, defines a linear interpolation between the sparsity-filled context sequence and the target repeated T times, and trains a U-Net to regress the constant velocity field (the residual to the target). Inference integrates this field with an ODE solver. Experiments on ACDC, ISLES, and Lumiere compare TFM with LCI, ConvLSTM, SimVP, and ViViT, reporting that TFM outperforms all baselines, with ablations on sparsity filling and number of integration steps.

Significance. The central formulation is mathematically sound and the experimental setup is described in enough detail to be reproducible. The paper draws attention to a genuine issue in longitudinal medical imaging: static anatomy dominates pixel-wise metrics, and a simple LCI baseline is very strong. TFM's difference modeling is a clean way to turn that observation into a training objective. If the empirical claims hold up, TFM would provide a useful and computationally efficient baseline for 4D medical image prediction. However, the paper currently overstates the evidence: the reported margins over LCI are often within run-to-run variability, and at least one table entry appears to contain a copy-paste error. The core idea is promising but needs stronger empirical validation.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2 / Table 2] The claim that TFM 'consistently surpasses' LCI is not supported by the reported statistics. On ACDC, NRMSE is 0.040±0.012 vs LCI 0.056; on Lumiere, SSIM is 89.7±1.2 vs 89.3. The standard deviations are comparable to or larger than the reported improvements, and no p-values, confidence intervals, or per-subject error distributions are given. With only three runs and test sets of 14-50 subjects, a paired significance test is needed to establish that the advantages are not due to chance. Additionally, the protocol fixes one mask seed per split, so all results are conditional on a single masking realization. Please add per-subject paired metrics with tests and CIs, or moderate the 'state-of-the-art' claim.
[Table 2, ISLES SimVP row] The SimVP row for ISLES is identical to the SimVP row for ACDC (NRMSE 0.124, SSIM 52.8, PSNR 21.21), which is implausible for two different datasets. This appears to be a copy-paste error. If the ISLES SimVP numbers are not correct, the comparison of TFM against SimVP on ISLES is invalid and the benchmark conclusions are undermined. Please correct the table and re-run the affected analyses.
[Section 3.2 / Baseline training] The baselines from natural imaging (SimVP, ConvLSTM, ViViT) are trained with a simple L2 loss for 500 epochs without any reported hyperparameter search or convergence analysis. These methods are known to require substantial tuning and longer training schedules; their poor performance (e.g., SSIM 30-50 on ACDC) may reflect undertraining rather than an inherent limitation. To make the 'consistently surpasses spatio-temporal methods from natural imaging' claim credible, please report training/validation curves, show that baselines have converged, or provide evidence of a hyperparameter search. At minimum, discuss this limitation explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1 / Section 2.4] Section 2.1 states that missing context images are set to 0, but Section 2.4 replaces them with sparsity filling. Clarify the order: are zero-filled inputs used at any stage before sparsity filling, or is sparsity filling applied before the model sees the data?
[Table 4] The NFE ablation reports only SSIM. Since the paper's main comparisons use NRMSE and PSNR as well, reporting those metrics would help judge whether the choice of 10 integration steps is robust across metrics.
[Section 2.3] The term 'Dimension Padding' is used without definition. Please define it explicitly and distinguish it from 'Temporal Pooling' with a formula or diagram.
[Section 4 / Algorithm 1] The text mentions 'Runge-Kutta integration' in the results discussion, while Algorithm 1 only illustrates Euler integration. Please state which solver was actually used for the main results and in Table 4.
[Figure 3] The x-axis label says 'total number of masked frames' but the caption and text describe two masking protocols ('1 → T' and 'T → 1'). Clarify the axis and the meaning of the two curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is standard flow matching on a linearly interpolated velocity; the LCI fallback is a design property, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

TFM's core derivation is standard conditional flow matching: X0 = filled context sequence, X1 = target repeated, linear interpolation Xτ = (1−τ)I′ + τItarget, and the target velocity is u = Itarget − I′. The network is trained to regress this velocity (Algorithm 1) and integrated at inference. The 'Difference Modeling' label is explicitly acknowledged to be 'mathematically just a transformation of the output space' (Section 2.3), so it is not an independent input smuggled into the result. The claim that TFM can fall back to LCI is a design property: a zero-velocity integration leaves X0 = I′, whose last non-zero channel is LCI. This property does not force the reported improvement over LCI, which is an empirical result on held-out test sets with fixed validation masks. Hyperparameter choices (e.g., NFE = 10) are made on validation data in a standard way and are not circular predictions. The few self-citations (ACDC dataset [3], Metrics reloaded [13]) are external/public resources and not load-bearing; the method relies on standard external flow-matching references ([9], [21]) and public datasets. Concerns about statistical significance are a correctness/evidence issue, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard flow matching theory and on domain assumptions about the similarity between context and target images. There are no invented physical or conceptual entities. The main free parameters are design choices (integration steps) and unspecified data-augmentation details (masking probability, seed).

free parameters (3)

number_of_integration_steps = 10
Ablated in Table 4; performance plateaus after 5-10 steps, chosen for a trade-off between speed and accuracy.
context_masking_probability = not specified
Random masking of context images during training is described but the probability is not reported, affecting reproducibility.
validation_mask_seed = not reported
A single seed is used to generate fixed validation masks, but the seed value is not given, so the evaluation is not fully reproducible.

assumptions (4)

standard math Conditional flow matching provides an unbiased estimate of the marginal vector field
Stated in Section 2.2, following Lipman et al. [9].
domain assumption Linear interpolation between context and target is a valid transport map for longitudinal medical images
Used in Eq. (3) and central to TFM. No medical-image-specific justification is given for the path being straight.
ad hoc to paper Sparsity filling with the most recent available scan brings filled images closer to the target and improves training
Empirically shown in Table 3; not derived from first principles.
domain assumption The training data are representative of the test distribution, including inter-subject variability
Assumed for generalization; Lumiere has only 48 training cases, which is a small sample.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal Flow Matching for Learning Spatio-Temporal Trajectories in 4D Longitudinal Medical Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZGDBZ6O

@misc{pith2026250821580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal Flow Matching for Learning Spatio-Temporal Trajectories in 4D Longitudinal Medical Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZGDBZ6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21580}
}

abstract

Understanding temporal dynamics in medical imaging is crucial for applications such as disease progression modeling, treatment planning and anatomical development tracking. However, most deep learning methods either consider only single temporal contexts, or focus on tasks like classification or regression, limiting their ability for fine-grained spatial predictions. While some approaches have been explored, they are often limited to single timepoints, specific diseases or have other technical restrictions. To address this fundamental gap, we introduce Temporal Flow Matching (TFM), a unified generative trajectory method that (i) aims to learn the underlying temporal distribution, (ii) by design can fall back to a nearest image predictor, i.e. predicting the last context image (LCI), as a special case, and (iii) supports $3D$ volumes, multiple prior scans, and irregular sampling. Extensive benchmarks on three public longitudinal datasets show that TFM consistently surpasses spatio-temporal methods from natural imaging, establishing a new state-of-the-art and robust baseline for $4D$ medical image prediction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Beyond Random Partitioning: Unsupervised Spatio-Temporal Stratification for Cohort Balancing in Longitudinal Medical Imaging
cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

K-means clustering on six intensity and temporal features plus intra-cluster stratified sampling reduces cross-subset imaging and temporal imbalance versus random splitting in a 149-patient longitudinal brain MRI cohort.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

ViViT: A Video Vision Transformer, Nov

Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Georg Heigold, Chen Sun, Mario Lu ˇci´c, and Cordelia Schmid. ViViT: A Video Vision Transformer, Nov. 2021. 3

2021
[2]

NODER: Image Sequence Regression Based on Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, July 2024

Hao Bai and Yi Hong. NODER: Image Sequence Regression Based on Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, July 2024. 2, 3

2024
[3]

Maier-Hein, Peter M

Olivier Bernard, Alain Lalande, Clement Zotti, Freder- ick Cervenansky, Xin Yang, Pheng-Ann Heng, Irem Cetin, Karim Lekadir, Oscar Camara, Miguel Angel Gonza- lez Ballester, Gerard Sanroma, Sandy Napel, Steffen Pe- tersen, Georgios Tziritas, Elias Grinias, Mahendra Khened, Varghese Alex Kollerathu, Ganapathy Krishnamurthi, Marc- Michel Rohé, Xavier Pennec...

work page 2018
[4]

Villanueva-Meyer, Jeffrey D

Evan Calabrese, Javier E. Villanueva-Meyer, Jeffrey D. Rudie, Andreas M. Rauschecker, Ujjwal Baid, Spyridon Bakas, Soonmee Cha, John T. Mongan, and Christopher P. Hess. The University of California San Francisco Preop- erative Diffuse Glioma MRI Dataset. Radiology. Artificial Intelligence, 4(6):e220058, Nov. 2022. 1

work page 2022
[5]

Cong Fang, Song Bai, Qianlan Chen, Yu Zhou, Liming Xia, Lixin Qin, Shi Gong, Xudong Xie, Chunhua Zhou, Dandan Tu, Changzheng Zhang, Xiaowu Liu, Weiwei Chen, Xiang Bai, and Philip H. S. Torr. Deep learning for predicting COVID-19 malignant progression. Medical Image Analysis, 72:102096, Aug. 2021. 2

work page 2021
[6]

Zhangyang Gao, Cheng Tan, Lirong Wu, and Stan Z. Li. SimVP: Simpler Yet Better Video Prediction. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3170–3180, 2022. 3, 4, 5

work page 2022
[7]

Long Short-Term Memory

Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Comput., 9(8):1735–1780, Nov. 1997. 5

work page 1997
[8]

Learning Spatio-Temporal Model of Disease Progression with NeuralODEs from Longitudinal V olumetric Data, Nov

Dmitrii Lachinov, Arunava Chakravarty, Christoph Grechenig, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth, and Hrvoje Bogunovic. Learning Spatio-Temporal Model of Disease Progression with NeuralODEs from Longitudinal V olumetric Data, Nov

work page

Show all 26 references

[9]

Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maxi- milian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow Matching for Generative Modeling, Feb. 2023. 3

2023
[10]

Yaron Lipman, Marton Havasi, Peter Holderrieth, Neta Shaul, Matt Le, Brian Karrer, Ricky T. Q. Chen, David Lopez-Paz, Heli Ben-Hamu, and Itai Gat. Flow Matching Guide and Code, Dec. 2024. 4

2024
[11]

TADM: Temporally- Aware Diffusion Model for Neurodegenerative Progression on Brain MRI

Mattia Litrico, Francesco Guarnera, Mario Valerio Giuffrida, Daniele Ravì, and Sebastiano Battiato. TADM: Temporally- Aware Diffusion Model for Neurodegenerative Progression on Brain MRI. In Marius George Linguraru, Qi Dou, Aasa Feragen, Stamatia Giannarou, Ben Glocker, Karim ...

2024
[12]

Shen, Guillaume Huguet, Zilong Wang, Alexander Tong, Danilo Bzdok, Jay Stew- art, Jay C

Chen Liu, Ke Xu, Liangbo L. Shen, Guillaume Huguet, Zilong Wang, Alexander Tong, Danilo Bzdok, Jay Stew- art, Jay C. Wang, Lucian V . Del Priore, and Smita Krish- naswamy. ImageFlowNet: Forecasting Multiscale Image- Level Trajectories of Disease Progression with Irregularly- S...

2025
[13]

Tizabi, Florian Buettner, Evangelia Christodoulou, Ben Glocker, Fabian Isensee, Jens Kleesiek, Michal Kozubek, Mauricio Reyes, Michael A

Lena Maier-Hein, Annika Reinke, Patrick Godau, Minu D. Tizabi, Florian Buettner, Evangelia Christodoulou, Ben Glocker, Fabian Isensee, Jens Kleesiek, Michal Kozubek, Mauricio Reyes, Michael A. Riegler, Manuel Wiesen- farth, A. Emre Kavur, Carole H. Sudre, Michael Baum- gartner...

2024
[14]

Petersen, P S

R C. Petersen, P S. Aisen, L A. Beckett, M C. Donohue, A C. Gamst, D J. Harvey, C R. Jack, W J. Jagust, L M. Shaw, A W. Toga, J Q. Trojanowski, and M W. Weiner. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Neu- rology, 74(3):201–209, Jan. 2010. 1

2010
[15]

Alexander, and Daniele Ravì

Lemuel Puglisi, Daniel C. Alexander, and Daniele Ravì. En- hancing Spatiotemporal Disease Progression Models via La- tent Diffusion and Prior Knowledge. In Marius George Lin- guraru, Qi Dou, Aasa Feragen, Stamatia Giannarou, Ben Glocker, Karim Lekadir, and Julia A. Schnabel, e...

2024
[16]

Alexander, and Daniele Ravì

Lemuel Puglisi, Daniel C. Alexander, and Daniele Ravì. Brain Latent Progression: Individual-based Spatiotemporal Disease Progression on 3D Brain MRIs via Latent Diffusion, Feb. 2025. 3

2025
[17]

Evamaria O. Riedel, Ezequiel de la Rosa, The Anh Baran, Moritz Hernandez Petzsche, Hakim Baazaoui, Kaiyuan Yang, David Robben, Joaquin Oscar Seia, Roland Wiest, Mauricio Reyes, Ruisheng Su, Claus Zimmer, Tobias Boeckh-Behrens, Maria Berndt, Bjoern Menze, Benedikt Wiestler, Sus...

2024
[18]

Convolutional LSTM Network: A Machine Learning Approach for Precipitation Nowcasting, Sept

Xingjian Shi, Zhourong Chen, Hao Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, Wai-kin Wong, and Wang-chun Woo. Convolutional LSTM Network: A Machine Learning Approach for Precipitation Nowcasting, Sept. 2015. 3, 5

2015
[19]

The LUMIERE dataset: Lon- gitudinal Glioblastoma MRI with expert RANO evaluation

Yannick Suter, Urspeter Knecht, Waldo Valenzuela, Michelle Notter, Ekkehard Hewer, Philippe Schucht, Roland Wiest, and Mauricio Reyes. The LUMIERE dataset: Lon- gitudinal Glioblastoma MRI with expert RANO evaluation. Scientific Data, 9(1):768, Dec. 2022. 1, 2, 6

2022
[20]

Arbuck, Elizabeth A

Patrick Therasse, Susan G. Arbuck, Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer, Jantien Wanders, Richard S. Kaplan, Larry Rubinstein, Jaap Verweij, Martine Van Glabbeke, Allan T. Van Oosterom, Michaele C. Christian, and Steve G. Gwyther. New Guide- lines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in S...

2000
[21]

TorchCFM, Jan

Alexander Tong. TorchCFM, Jan. 2025. 6, 12

2025
[22]

SADM: Sequence-Aware Diffusion Model for Longitudinal Medical Image Generation

Jee Seok Yoon, Chenghao Zhang, Heung-Il Suk, Jia Guo, and Xiaoxiao Li. SADM: Sequence-Aware Diffusion Model for Longitudinal Medical Image Generation. In Alejandro Frangi, Marleen De Bruijne, Demian Wassermann, and Nas- sir Navab, editors, Information Processing in Medical Ima...

2023
[23]

Longitudinally Consistent Individualized Prediction of Infant Cortical Morphological Development

Xinrui Yuan, Jiale Cheng, Dan Hu, Zhengwang Wu, Li Wang, Weili Lin, and Gang Li. Longitudinally Consistent Individualized Prediction of Infant Cortical Morphological Development. In Marius George Linguraru, Qi Dou, Aasa Feragen, Stamatia Giannarou, Ben Glocker, Karim Lekadir, ...

2024
[24]

LaTiM: Longitudinal Representation Learning in Continuous-Time Models to Predict Disease Progression

Rachid Zeghlache, Pierre-Henri Conze, Mostafa El Habib Daho, Yihao Li, Hugo Le Boité, Ramin Ta- dayoni, Pascale Massin, Béatrice Cochener, Alireza Rezaei, Ikram Brahim, Gwenolé Quellec, and Mathieu Lamard. LaTiM: Longitudinal Representation Learning in Continuous-Time Models t...

2024
[25]

M2Fusion: Multi-time Multimodal Fusion for Prediction of Pathologi- cal Complete Response in Breast Cancer

Song Zhang, Siyao Du, Caixia Sun, Bao Li, Lizhi Shao, Lina Zhang, Kun Wang, Zhenyu Liu, and Jie Tian. M2Fusion: Multi-time Multimodal Fusion for Prediction of Pathologi- cal Complete Response in Breast Cancer. In Marius George Linguraru, Qi Dou, Aasa Feragen, Stamatia Giannaro...

2024
[26]

LoCI-DiffCom: Longitudinal Consistency-Informed Diffu- sion Model for 3D Infant Brain Image Completion

Zihao Zhu, Tianli Tao, Yitian Tao, Haowen Deng, Xinyi Cai, Gaofeng Wu, Kaidong Wang, Haifeng Tang, Lix- uan Zhu, Zhuoyang Gu, Dinggang Shen, and Han Zhang. LoCI-DiffCom: Longitudinal Consistency-Informed Diffu- sion Model for 3D Infant Brain Image Completion. In Mar- ius Georg...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

ViViT: A Video Vision Transformer, Nov

Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Georg Heigold, Chen Sun, Mario Lu ˇci´c, and Cordelia Schmid. ViViT: A Video Vision Transformer, Nov. 2021. 3

2021

[2] [2]

NODER: Image Sequence Regression Based on Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, July 2024

Hao Bai and Yi Hong. NODER: Image Sequence Regression Based on Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, July 2024. 2, 3

2024

[3] [3]

Maier-Hein, Peter M

Olivier Bernard, Alain Lalande, Clement Zotti, Freder- ick Cervenansky, Xin Yang, Pheng-Ann Heng, Irem Cetin, Karim Lekadir, Oscar Camara, Miguel Angel Gonza- lez Ballester, Gerard Sanroma, Sandy Napel, Steffen Pe- tersen, Georgios Tziritas, Elias Grinias, Mahendra Khened, Varghese Alex Kollerathu, Ganapathy Krishnamurthi, Marc- Michel Rohé, Xavier Pennec...

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Villanueva-Meyer, Jeffrey D

Evan Calabrese, Javier E. Villanueva-Meyer, Jeffrey D. Rudie, Andreas M. Rauschecker, Ujjwal Baid, Spyridon Bakas, Soonmee Cha, John T. Mongan, and Christopher P. Hess. The University of California San Francisco Preop- erative Diffuse Glioma MRI Dataset. Radiology. Artificial Intelligence, 4(6):e220058, Nov. 2022. 1

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Cong Fang, Song Bai, Qianlan Chen, Yu Zhou, Liming Xia, Lixin Qin, Shi Gong, Xudong Xie, Chunhua Zhou, Dandan Tu, Changzheng Zhang, Xiaowu Liu, Weiwei Chen, Xiang Bai, and Philip H. S. Torr. Deep learning for predicting COVID-19 malignant progression. Medical Image Analysis, 72:102096, Aug. 2021. 2

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Zhangyang Gao, Cheng Tan, Lirong Wu, and Stan Z. Li. SimVP: Simpler Yet Better Video Prediction. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3170–3180, 2022. 3, 4, 5

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Long Short-Term Memory

Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Comput., 9(8):1735–1780, Nov. 1997. 5

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Learning Spatio-Temporal Model of Disease Progression with NeuralODEs from Longitudinal V olumetric Data, Nov

Dmitrii Lachinov, Arunava Chakravarty, Christoph Grechenig, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth, and Hrvoje Bogunovic. Learning Spatio-Temporal Model of Disease Progression with NeuralODEs from Longitudinal V olumetric Data, Nov

work page