Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

VMD transfers radiology text and coarse annotation knowledge into a 3D CNN, improving unannotated carotid plaque MRI diagnosis from ROC 0.657 to 0.714.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:40 UTC pith:4ZI6CG24

load-bearing objection A clinically sensible distillation setup with consistent empirical gains, but the report modality's unspecified content may leak the label, and the variational derivation has real mathematical problems. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.11924 v2 pith:4ZI6CG24 submitted 2025-09-15 cs.CV cs.LG

Enriched text-guided variational multimodal knowledge distillation network (VMD) for automated diagnosis of plaque vulnerability in 3D carotid artery MRI

Bo Cao , Fan Yu , Mengmeng Feng , SenHao Zhang , Xin Meng , Yue Zhang , Zhen Qian , Jie Lu This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.LG
keywords carotid plaque vulnerability3D carotid MRImultimodal knowledge distillationvariational inferencecontrastive learningradiology reportsstudent-teacher-expert networkmedical image classification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proposes VMD, a student-teacher-expert knowledge distillation strategy that trains a network to diagnose plaque vulnerability directly from unannotated 3D carotid MRI. The teacher branch consumes the same MRI multiplied by a cheap vessel-wall annotation; the expert branch consumes the radiology report text. VMD transfers knowledge from both by maximizing mutual information through contrastive learning and variational inference, and at inference only the student needs the raw MRI. The authors report ROC of 0.7136 versus 0.6567 for the fine-tuned baseline, with ablations showing each component helps. If the result holds, it would reduce annotation effort and give radiologists a fast, reasonably accurate second reader.

Core claim

The central claim is that radiologists' domain knowledge, encoded in free-text reports, and anatomical priors, encoded in coarse vessel-wall annotations, can be transferred into a 3D convolutional student network so that plaque vulnerability is classified accurately without any annotation at inference time. The transfer is formulated as a mutual-information maximization: a contrastive term pulls same-class feature representations together across the teacher-student and teacher-expert pairs, and a variational term minimizes the KL divergence between the expert's latent posterior and the student's/teacher's latent priors. The paper presents experiments on an in-house dataset of 502 carotid 3D-

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the three-branch student-teacher-expert architecture combined with a dual mutual-information objective. The expert is a pretrained biomedical language model that encodes radiology reports; the teacher takes the element-wise product of the MRI volume with a limited vessel-wall annotation mask; the student sees only the raw MRI. The optimization objective, equation (1), maximizes I(S,T), I(S,E), and I(T,E) while minimizing classification cross-entropy. I(S,T) uses a label-aware infoNCE-style contrastive loss; I(S,E) uses a variational ELBO with reparameterization; I(T,E) combines both. This joint objective lets the student inherit text-derived diagnostic knowledge

Load-bearing premise

The expert channel must carry diagnostic knowledge that is not already contained in the label; if the report explicitly says the plaque is vulnerable or stable, the student is effectively reading the label through the text encoder, and the claimed distillation of domain expertise collapses.

What would settle it

Open the radiology reports and check whether they contain explicit terms like 'vulnerable plaque', 'stable plaque', or the component labels (IPH, LRC, thrombus, ulceration). Retrain VMD with every sentence that states or implies the diagnosis removed from the reports; if the ROC improvement over baseline largely disappears, the expert modality was providing label leakage, not independent domain knowledge.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Plaque vulnerability can be diagnosed directly from unannotated 3D carotid MRI, eliminating the need for pixel-level component segmentation at inference.
  • Rough vessel-wall annotations, which are far cheaper than full plaque-component labeling, can act as an effective teacher modality.
  • Radiology report text, routinely generated in clinical practice and usually discarded by automated MRI pipelines, can be recycled to improve visual classification.
  • The teacher network itself becomes a better annotator when constrained by the expert, suggesting cascaded distillation improves intermediate representations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the radiology reports contain explicit vulnerability statements, the reported gain may come from label leakage through the text encoder rather than from genuine domain expertise; redacting all diagnostic conclusion sentences before training would test this.
  • The same-class contrastive alignment assumes that vulnerable plaques look similar across patients; this assumption may weaken in multi-center data with different scanners, so external validation is a natural next test.
  • The dual mutual-information formulation is not specific to carotid MRI; it could transfer to other 3D medical classification tasks where coarse annotations and text reports coexist, such as prostate or liver MRI.
  • Because the student and teacher share a classification head, the architecture is unusually compact; probing how much of the gain comes from weight sharing versus the MI losses would clarify the mechanism.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VMD, a student-teacher-expert distillation framework for classifying carotid plaque vulnerability from 3D carotid MRI. The student network diagnoses from unannotated MRI; the teacher network additionally sees limited vessel-wall annotations; the expert network accepts radiology reports. Training maximizes a combination of mutual-information-style terms: variational ELBO/KL terms between latent distributions and supervised contrastive losses between student-teacher and teacher-expert prediction pairs, plus a classification cross-entropy term. On an in-house dataset of 502 images, the student reaches ROC 0.7136±0.013, outperforming a fine-tuned 3DResNet-50 baseline (ROC 0.6567±0.0018) and several prior distillation methods, and it also beats two junior radiologists in speed and accuracy. Ablation studies report that each added term improves the student.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a practically attractive recipe: use easily available radiology reports and cheap limited annotations to improve diagnosis from unannotated 3D MRI without extra inference cost. The clinical comparison with junior radiologists and the five-seed ablation study are useful concrete evidence. However, the significance rests on two pillars that are currently shaky: (1) the variational derivation in Section III-A contains algebraic errors and conflates an ELBO with a mutual information; (2) the expert modality is never described, so the reported gains may reflect label leakage through the radiology reports rather than transfer of radiologists' domain expertise. No code or data is released, which limits reproducibility but is not itself a defect for this venue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-A / Section III-A] The central derivation is not correct as written. In Eq. (3), the first displayed equality writes the integration variable as dθ (network weights) rather than dz_E. More seriously, the expansion of D_KL(q_θ(z_E|x_E) || p(z_S|x_S,y)) introduces p(y|x_S) and p(y|x_S,z_S) with sign errors: the second line contains a term with log p(z_S|x_S,y) that has the wrong sign, and the intermediate lines do not telescope into the final expression. The final inequality in Eq. (4) is the standard ELBO for log p(y|x_S) only if z_S is drawn from the conditional prior p(z_S|x_S) and q is a variational posterior over z_S; here q is defined over z_E conditioned on x_E, and the paper never shows how z_E enters the likelihood p(y|x_S,z_S). Equation (5) then labels this ELBO as I(S,E), but an ELBO for the label is not a mutual information between the student and expert networks. Because this term is the objecti
  2. [Tables III and IV] The content of the radiology reports is never described. Section III-A defines x_E only as 'radiology report,' and Section IV-A describes patient inclusion and imaging but not the report text. The ground-truth labeling criterion is that plaques containing LRC, IPH, thrombus, or ulceration are vulnerable. In routine carotid MRI reporting, the conclusion often states these components or directly states whether the plaque is vulnerable. If the reports contain such statements, then the expert network is effectively trained on the target label through text, and the reported improvements from I(S,E) and I(T,E) are label distillation (privileged information), not transfer of radiologists' domain expertise. This would substantially weaken the central claim. The authors should provide examples or a description of the report text, report the proportion of reports that explicitly mention vulnerabil
  3. [Section V-A] The ablation baseline is not consistently reported. Table IV's 'w/o both' row reports ROC 0.6645±0.0193, but Table II's baseline (fine-tuned 3DResNet-50 without teacher/expert) reports 0.6567±0.0018. If these are the same setting, the numbers and standard errors should match; if they are different (e.g., a student network with a different architecture or training schedule), this must be stated. Similarly, full VMD in Table IV reports ROC 0.7109±0.0163, while Table II reports 0.7136±0.013. These discrepancies make it difficult to quantify the incremental contribution of each ablated term, and they should be reconciled or explained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V-A] The improvement percentages over baseline are internally inconsistent. The text says 'ROC: 4.66%, ACC: 1.01%, PRC: 1.63%', but from Table II the absolute percentage-point increases are 5.69, 6.56, and 3.95, respectively. The later list of relative gains (8.67%, 10.05%, 5.06%, 8.52%, 6.96%) is also not fully consistent (ACC should be about 9.95%). Please correct all reported percentages.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The algorithm says 'Minimise kld_S_E and kld_T_E', but Eq. (5) and Eq. (8) include both the log-likelihood expectation and the KL term; minimizing only the KL would not implement the stated objective. The wording should be aligned with the equations.
  3. [Section III-B] The notation \hat{x}^T_j and \hat{x}^S_i is used for 'predictions' in Eq. (6), but the contrastive loss is applied to feature representations. Please clarify whether these are class logits, latent features, or post-softmax probabilities; the gradient behavior and the interpretation as mutual information depend on this choice.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammar issues: 'Variation inference' in the abstract, 'V ARIATIONAL' in the page header, 'BOLDREPRESNETS' in Table II, 'Minimisekld' in Algorithm 1, 'diagnosis of plaque in 3D carotid artery MRI' in the title (probably should be 'plaque vulnerability'). A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: VMD's variational/contrastive objective is a self-contained construction; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that VMD transfers knowledge from radiology reports and limited annotations to a student network diagnosing plaque vulnerability from unannotated 3D MRI. The derivation chain in Section III defines the optimization objective in Eq. (1) as a weighted sum of mutual-information terms, then specifies each term: I(S,E) as a variational ELBO in Eq. (5), I(S,T) as a supervised contrastive loss in Eqs. (6)-(7), and I(T,E) as a combination of the two in Eq. (8). These are standard constructions rather than definitions that secretly assume the result. The student, teacher, and expert networks are all trained with cross-entropy against the same labels, and the expert guides the student through KL and contrastive losses; this is a typical knowledge-distillation pipeline and does not reduce the prediction to a fitted constant or to a self-citation. The paper does quote reference [29] from the same group, but only for background on segmentation labor cost and related work, not as a load-bearing justification for VMD's design or as a uniqueness theorem. A potential concern is that radiology reports might contain the ground-truth label, which would make the expert branch a label channel rather than a domain-knowledge source; however, the paper never specifies the report content, so this remains an unverified correctness/validity risk rather than a demonstrated circularity. The reported test-set results are separated from training and averaged over seeds, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is evident. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard variational inference assumptions plus two domain-specific premises: that limited vessel annotations provide useful anatomical priors and that radiology reports carry diagnostic knowledge rather than just the label. Loss weights are unreported hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights α1-α4 = not reported
    Weights of the four terms in Eq (1), presumably tuned on validation set, not specified in the paper.
  • Classification loss weights λ1-λ3 = not reported
    Weights in Eq (9), not specified.
  • Temperature τ = 0.5
    Set empirically for the contrastive similarity in Eq (6).
  • Latent dimension = 512
    Size of the two-layer MLP latent space for z, a chosen architecture hyperparameter.
  • Crop volume = (128,128,60)
    Images cropped to this volume; manual preprocessing choice.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The expert latent z_E can approximate the student's posterior p(z_S|x_S,y), the basis of the variational objective.
    Used in Eqs (3)-(5); standard in VKD but not validated in this setting.
  • domain assumption Same-class images from teacher and student (annotated vs unannotated) should have high feature similarity and different classes low similarity.
    Justifies the contrastive objective I(S,T) in Eq (7).
  • ad hoc to paper The KL divergence and contrastive losses can be jointly optimized as mutual information terms.
    The paper equates an ELBO with mutual information without proof (Eq (5)).
  • domain assumption Radiology report text contains diagnostic knowledge about plaque vulnerability.
    Central premise of the expert modality; no report content or external validation shown.
  • standard math Gaussian latent distributions and reparameterization trick (Kingma & Welling 2013).
    Used for amortized variational inference in the three encoders.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14446 in / 14584 out tokens · 152175 ms · 2026-08-04T16:40:11.268896+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enriched text-guided variational multimodal knowledge distillation network (VMD) for automated diagnosis of plaque vulnerability in 3D carotid artery MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZI6CG24

@misc{pith2026250911924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enriched text-guided variational multimodal knowledge distillation network (VMD) for automated diagnosis of plaque vulnerability in 3D carotid artery MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZI6CG24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.11924}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Multimodal learning has attracted much attention in recent years due to its ability to effectively utilize data features from a variety of different modalities. Diagnosing the vulnerability of atherosclerotic plaques directly from carotid 3D MRI images is relatively challenging for both radiologists and conventional 3D vision networks. In clinical practice, radiologists assess patient conditions using a multimodal approach that incorporates various imaging modalities and domain-specific expertise, paving the way for the creation of multimodal diagnostic networks. In this paper, we have developed an effective strategy to leverage radiologists' domain knowledge to automate the diagnosis of carotid plaque vulnerability through Variation inference and Multimodal knowledge Distillation (VMD). This method excels in harnessing cross-modality prior knowledge from limited image annotations and radiology reports within training data, thereby enhancing the diagnostic network's accuracy for unannotated 3D MRI images. We conducted in-depth experiments on the dataset collected in-house and verified the effectiveness of the VMD strategy we proposed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.11924 by Bo Cao, Fan Yu, Jie Lu, Mengmeng Feng, SenHao Zhang, Xin Meng, Yue Zhang, Zhen Qian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of the difference between full annotation and limited an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of grayscale overlaps for different components and limited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: How limited annotations and reports work in VMD. The diagnosis of plaque vulnerability is directly performed using unannotated 3D MRI by the student network (a). Limited annotations and radiology reports, which act as teacher (b) and expert (c) respectively, influence the student by maximizing contrastive learning-based MI and variational inference. This process significantly enhances the diagnostic capabi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The overview of VMD. (a) is the transverse section of the original 3D MRI image. The carotid artery region (b,d) for the student network is obtained through cropping. The input (e) for the teacher network is the product of (d) and the limited annotations (c). The radiology report (f) corresponding to the image is for the expert network. When training VMD, we maximize the MI and minimize the KL divergence b… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the modified variational inference module. The Student, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of the contrastive-based inter-class mutual information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Secondly, we compare our method with the diagnostic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Utilize the Grad-CAM [31] method to visualize the features of the final convolutional layer of the student network. For 4 distinct test samples, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Compare the diagnostic performance of the VMD student model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation,

    Z. Zhou, M. M. R. Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1856–1867, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation,

    A. Hatamizadeh, Y . Tang, V . Nath, D. Yang, A. Myronenko, B. Land- man, H. R. Roth, and D. Xu, “Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pp. 574–584, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international con- ference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18, pp. 234–241, Springer, 2015

    2015

  4. [4]

    Variational information distillation for knowledge transfer,

    S. Ahn, S. X. Hu, A. Damianou, N. D. Lawrence, and Z. Dai, “Variational information distillation for knowledge transfer,” in2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 9155–9163, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Enhanced multimodal representation learning with cross-modal kd,

    M. Chen, L. Xing, Y . Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Enhanced multimodal representation learning with cross-modal kd,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 11766–11775, June 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Expert-level detection of pathologies from unannotated chest x-ray images via self-supervised learning,

    E. Tiu, E. Talius, P. Patel, C. P. Langlotz, A. Y . Ng, and P. Rajpurkar, “Expert-level detection of pathologies from unannotated chest x-ray images via self-supervised learning,”Nature Biomedical Engineering, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1399–1406, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Variational knowl- edge distillation for disease classification in chest x-rays,

    T. Van Sonsbeek, X. Zhen, M. Worring, and L. Shao, “Variational knowl- edge distillation for disease classification in chest x-rays,” inInformation Processing in Medical Imaging: 27th International Conference, IPMI 2021, Virtual Event, June 28–June 30, 2021, Proceedings 27, pp. 334– 345, Springer, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Distilling audio- visual knowledge by compositional contrastive learning,

    Y . Chen, Y . Xian, A. Koepke, Y . Shan, and Z. Akata, “Distilling audio- visual knowledge by compositional contrastive learning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pp. 7016–7025, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Visual prompt tuning,

    M. Jia, L. Tang, B.-C. Chen, C. Cardie, S. Belongie, B. Hariharan, and S.-N. Lim, “Visual prompt tuning,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Mc-bert: Efficient language pre-training via a meta controller,

    Z. Xu, L. Gong, G. Ke, D. He, S. Zheng, L. Wang, J. Bian, and T.- Y . Liu, “Mc-bert: Efficient language pre-training via a meta controller,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.05744, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Med3d: Transfer learning for 3d medical image analysis,

    S. Chen, K. Ma, and Y . Zheng, “Med3d: Transfer learning for 3d medical image analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00625, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  12. [12]

    Imaging biomark- ers of vulnerable carotid plaques for stroke risk prediction and their potential clinical implications,

    L. Saba, T. Saam, H. R. J ¨ager, C. Yuan, T. S. Hatsukami, D. Saloner, B. A. Wasserman, L. H. Bonati, and M. Wintermark, “Imaging biomark- ers of vulnerable carotid plaques for stroke risk prediction and their potential clinical implications,”The Lancet Neurology, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 559–572, 2019

    2019

  13. [13]

    Classification of human carotid atherosclerotic lesions with in vivo multicontrast magnetic resonance imaging,

    J.-M. Cai, T. S. Hatsukami, M. S. Ferguson, R. Small, N. L. Polissar, and C. Yuan, “Classification of human carotid atherosclerotic lesions with in vivo multicontrast magnetic resonance imaging,”Circulation, vol. 106, no. 11, pp. 1368–1373, 2002

    2002

  14. [14]

    Deep morphology aided diagnosis network for segmentation of carotid artery vessel wall and diagnosis of carotid atherosclerosis on black-blood vessel wall mri,

    J. Wu, J. Xin, X. Yang, J. Sun, D. Xu, N. Zheng, and C. Yuan, “Deep morphology aided diagnosis network for segmentation of carotid artery vessel wall and diagnosis of carotid atherosclerosis on black-blood vessel wall mri,”Medical physics, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 5544–5561, 2019

    2019

  15. [15]

    Domain adaptive and fully automated carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion detection using an artificial intelli- gence approach (latte) on 3d mri,

    L. Chen, H. Zhao, H. Jiang, N. Balu, D. B. Geleri, B. Chu, H. Watase, X. Zhao, R. Li, J. Xu,et al., “Domain adaptive and fully automated carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion detection using an artificial intelli- gence approach (latte) on 3d mri,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 1662–1673, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark,et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 8748–8763, PMLR, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,

    K. Sohn, H. Lee, and X. Yan, “Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  20. [20]

    Visualizing data using t-sne.,

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne.,” Journal of machine learning research, vol. 9, no. 11, 2008

    2008

  21. [21]

    Clinicalbert: Modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission,

    K. Huang, J. Altosaar, and R. Ranganath, “Clinicalbert: Modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05342, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  22. [22]

    A review of deep learning in medical imaging: Imaging traits, technol- ogy trends, case studies with progress highlights, and future promises,

    S. K. Zhou, H. Greenspan, C. Davatzikos, J. S. Duncan, B. Van Gin- neken, A. Madabhushi, J. L. Prince, D. Rueckert, and R. M. Summers, “A review of deep learning in medical imaging: Imaging traits, technol- ogy trends, case studies with progress highlights, and future promises,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 820–838, 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    Linkbert: Pretraining lan- guage models with document links,

    M. Yasunaga, J. Leskovec, and P. Liang, “Linkbert: Pretraining lan- guage models with document links,” inAssociation for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Text-guided foundation model adaptation for pathological image clas- sification,

    Y . Zhang, J. Gao, M. Zhou, X. Wang, Y . Qiao, S. Zhang, and D. Wang, “Text-guided foundation model adaptation for pathological image clas- sification,” inMICCAI, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,

    A. v. d. Oord, Y . Li, and O. Vinyals, “Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Contrastive representation distilla- tion,

    Y . Tian, D. Krishnan, and P. Isola, “Contrastive representation distilla- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10699, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  27. [27]

    Society for vascular surgery clinical practice guidelines for management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease,

    A. F. AbuRahma, E. D. Avgerinos, R. W. Chang, R. C. Darling III, A. A. Duncan, T. L. Forbes, M. B. Malas, M. H. Murad, B. A. Perler, R. J. Powell,et al., “Society for vascular surgery clinical practice guidelines for management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease,”Journal of vascular surgery, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 4S–22S, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Conceptual- ized representation learning for chinese biomedical text mining,

    N. Zhang, Q. Jia, K. Yin, L. Dong, F. Gao, and N. Hua, “Conceptual- ized representation learning for chinese biomedical text mining,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.10813, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    A 3d framework for segmentation of carotid artery vessel wall and identification of plaque compositions in multi-sequence mr images,

    J. Wang, F. Yu, M. Zhang, J. Lu, and Z. Qian, “A 3d framework for segmentation of carotid artery vessel wall and identification of plaque compositions in multi-sequence mr images,”Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, vol. 116, p. 102402, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

    R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” inProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp. 618–626, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    Grad-cam: visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

    R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-cam: visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,”International journal of computer vision, vol. 128, pp. 336–359, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Contemporary prevalence of carotid stenosis in patients presenting with ischaemic stroke,

    S. Cheng, M. Brown, R. Simister, and T. Richards, “Contemporary prevalence of carotid stenosis in patients presenting with ischaemic stroke,”Journal of British Surgery, vol. 106, no. 7, pp. 872–878, 2019

    2019

  33. [33]

    Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019,

    G. Collaborators, V . L. Feigin, B. A. Stark, C. O. Johnson, G. A. Roth, C. Bisignano, G. G. Abady, M. Abbasifard, M. Abbasi-Kangevari, F. Abd-Allah,et al., “Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019,”The Lancet Neurology, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 795– 820, 2021

    1990

  34. [34]

    Manage- ment of atherosclerotic extracranial carotid artery stenosis,

    L. H. Bonati, O. Jansen, G. J. de Borst, and M. M. Brown, “Manage- ment of atherosclerotic extracranial carotid artery stenosis,”The Lancet Neurology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 273–283, 2022

    2022

  35. [35]

    Risk of stroke in relation to degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a population-based cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis,

    D. P. Howard, L. Gaziano, and P. M. Rothwell, “Risk of stroke in relation to degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a population-based cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis,”The Lancet Neurology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 193–202, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis,

    P. M. Rothwell, M. Eliasziw, S. Gutnikov, A. J. Fox, D. W. Taylor, M. Mayberg, C. P. Warlow, and H. Barnett, “Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis,”The Lancet, vol. 361, no. 9352, pp. 107–116, 2003

    2003

  37. [37]

    Group mrcacstc. prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial,

    A. Halliday, A. Mansfield, J. Marro, C. Peto, R. Peto, J. Potter, and D. Thomas, “Group mrcacstc. prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial,”Lancet, vol. 363, no. 9420, pp. 1491–1502, 2004

    2004

  38. [38]

    Atheroscle- rotic carotid plaque composition and incident stroke and coronary events,

    D. Bos, B. Arshi, Q. J. van den Bouwhuijsen, M. K. Ikram, M. Sel- waness, M. W. Vernooij, M. Kavousi, and A. van der Lugt, “Atheroscle- rotic carotid plaque composition and incident stroke and coronary events,”Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 77, no. 11, pp. 1426–1435, 2021. AUTHORet al.: ENRICHED TEXT-GUIDED V ARIATIONAL MULTIMODAL KNO...

    2021

  39. [39]

    As- sociations between carotid artery plaque burden, plaque characteristics, and cardiovascular events: the aric carotid magnetic resonance imaging study,

    G. Brunner, S. S. Virani, W. Sun, L. Liu, R. C. Dodge, V . Nambi, J. Coresh, T. H. Mosley, A. R. Sharrett, E. Boerwinkle,et al., “As- sociations between carotid artery plaque burden, plaque characteristics, and cardiovascular events: the aric carotid magnetic resonance imaging study,”JAMA cardiology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 2021

    2021

  40. [40]

    Carotid vessel wall segmentation through domain aligner, topological learning, and segment anything model for sparse annotation in mr images,

    X. Li, X. Ouyang, J. Zhang, Z. Ding, Y . Zhang, Z. Xue, F. Shi, and D. Shen, “Carotid vessel wall segmentation through domain aligner, topological learning, and segment anything model for sparse annotation in mr images,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Cascaded residual u-net for fully automatic segmentation of 3d carotid artery in high-resolution multi-contrast mr images,

    C. Zhu, X. Wang, Z. Teng, S. Chen, X. Huang, M. Xia, L. Mao, and C. Bai, “Cascaded residual u-net for fully automatic segmentation of 3d carotid artery in high-resolution multi-contrast mr images,”Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 66, no. 4, p. 045033, 2021

    2021