Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Diffusion-driven SpatioTemporal Graph KANsformer for Medical Examination Recommendation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces DST-GKAN, a two-stage model that denoises a heterogeneous patient graph with a task-adaptive diffusion process and then encodes spatial and temporal structure with graph attention and a KAN-based transformer…

desk verdict New task and dataset are the real contributions; the model is a plausible stack, but the evaluation infrastructure (dataset validity, statistics, ablation consistency) is not yet at publishable strength. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07431 v1 pith:AHJQ3GAH submitted 2025-05-12 cs.IR

Jianan Li , Yangtao Zhou , Zhifu Zhao , Qinglan Huang , Jian Qi , Xiao He , Hua Chu , Fu Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords medicalexaminationrecommendationelectronichealthrecordsheterogeneousgraphdiffusionmodelKolmogorov-ArnoldNetworkssequentialtemporalmodelinghealthcareAIbenchmark
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 paper formalizes a new recommender task: given a patient's chronological record of diseases, symptoms, and prior examinations, predict which medical examination should come next. To support it, the authors build a heterogeneous temporal dataset from real anonymized clinical notes, then propose DST-GKAN, a two-stage model. A task-adaptive diffusion process first strips noise from the patient-entity graph, and a spatiotemporal encoder combining graph attention, a KAN-based transformer, and cross-attention fusion learns the patient representation. On their benchmark the model reports the best HR@10 of 0.7302 and NDCG@10 of 0.4646 against ten sequential-recommendation baselines. If the task and dataset are sound, this opens a new line of diagnostic decision support.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage DST-GKAN architecture. In stage one, a task-adaptive diffusion model treats the adjacency matrix of the heterogeneous patient-entity graph as the signal to be denoised: a forward process adds Gaussian noise, a reverse process reconstructs the graph, and a gating function that watches the downstream recommendation loss decides whether to keep training the denoiser or freeze it, yielding a denoised subgraph that keeps recommendation-relevant edges. In stage two, a Relation-aware Graph Attention Network aggregates spatial neighbor information over that subgraph; a KANsformer, where KAN means Kolmogorov-Arnold Network (a network with learnable spline activations), encodes the patient's sequence of entities over time; and cross-attention fuses spatial query features with temporal key-value features into the final patient embedding. The recommendation score is an inner product between patient and examination embeddings, trained with cross-entropy.

What would settle it

Have two clinicians independently annotate a random sample of the source notes for diseases, symptoms, and examinations, then compute precision and recall of the dataset's extracted entities against their labels; if recall or precision is low, the benchmark comparisons would measure an artifact of the extraction pipeline. A complementary test is to rerun DST-GKAN and the baselines on a second independently constructed examination dataset and check whether the reported ranking gains persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that medical examination recommendation can be treated as a sequential prediction problem over heterogeneous electronic health records, and that a carefully structured two-stage architecture solves it better than existing general-purpose recommenders. Concretely, DST-GKAN constructs a patient-entity heterogeneous graph, uses a diffusion model to regenerate a recommendation-relevant subgraph, encodes spatial structure with a relation-aware graph attention network, encodes temporal structure with a KANsformer (a Transformer whose feed-forward blocks are replaced by Kolmogorov-Arnold-style learnable spline layers), and fuses the two views by cross-attention. On the introduced MeExam dataset, the authors report state-of-the-art results: HR@10 of 0.7302 and NDCG@10 of 0.4646. Ablation studies indicate that the temporal KANsformer contributes the largest performance share among the model components.

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation rests on the assumption that the automatically extracted entities in the new dataset faithfully reflect the examinations, diseases, and symptoms that actually occurred in the source clinical notes, but extraction accuracy is asserted rather than measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Medical examination recommendation becomes a concrete, benchmarked task: predicting the next examination from a patient's chronological disease-symptom-examination history.
  • On the introduced MeExam dataset, DST-GKAN reports HR@10 of 0.7302 and NDCG@10 of 0.4646, surpassing the ten general-purpose sequential recommenders tested, with the closest baseline at HR@10 of 0.7069.
  • Ablations show that removing the temporal KANsformer costs more performance than removing the graph encoder, indicating that temporal modeling carries much of the predictive signal.
  • The task-adaptive diffusion mechanism improves results over a fixed denoiser, and the reported sensitivity sweep finds a threshold of 0.2 gives the best performance.
  • The dataset itself, with 37,774 patients and 701 examination items, is offered as a public resource for future work on this task.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper reports no extraction accuracy for the entities pulled from clinical notes, the benchmark's reliability is untested; a natural extension is to publish entity-level precision and recall alongside a human-agreement study.
  • The task-adaptive diffusion stage produces a denoised subgraph that could double as an interpretable summary of a patient's relevant conditions if its edge weights were inspected, which the paper does not pursue.
  • If the benchmark proves reliable, the same two-stage pattern of denoising a heterogeneous graph and then encoding space and time may transfer to other clinical prediction tasks such as procedure or imaging orders.
  • Even at the reported best, the model places the correct examination in the top ten only about 73 percent of the time, so clinical deployment would require calibration and explicit handling of rare examinations.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes a new task, medical examination recommendation, and proposes DST-GKAN, a two-stage model that first applies a task-adaptive diffusion process to denoise a heterogeneous patient-entity graph and then learns spatiotemporal representations with a relation-aware graph attention network (RGAT) and a KAN-based Transformer (KANsformer). The authors also construct and release a new benchmark dataset, MeExam, extracted from MIMIC-III notes using a few-shot NER framework (NEEDLE/ClinicalBERT) and LLM-based cleaning. Experiments on MeExam report HR@10 0.7302 and NDCG@10 0.4646, claimed to significantly outperform ten baselines, with additional ablations and hyperparameter sensitivity analyses.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is the first competitive benchmark and method for next-examination recommendation from heterogeneous temporal EHR data, and the proposed architecture—diffusion-based subgraph distillation coupled with a spatiotemporal KANsformer—would be a meaningful addition to sequential and graph-based recommendation. However, the significance is currently undercut by three load-bearing weaknesses: the MeExam extraction pipeline is not validated with any quantitative accuracy measure; the evaluation uses a single split with no error bars or significance tests and hyperparameter tuning without an explicit validation split; and the main ablation table contradicts the prose claim that every component helps, since removing the diffusion module improves HR@10. The architectural novelty is real but the empirical evidence does not yet support the stated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-A] The MeExam dataset is the sole basis for all experiments, but its construction pipeline is never quantitatively validated. The paper reports approximately 5,000 manually annotated entity labels for NEEDLE training and an LLM-based cleaning stage, yet it provides no precision, recall, F1, human agreement, or error analysis for either the NER step or the LLM refinement. Without such evaluation, the possibility remains that entity merging/splitting errors, omissions, or temporal misorderings in the extracted sequences make the leave-one-out next-examination prediction task ill-posed. Since the entire SOTA claim rests on MeExam, the authors must report NER accuracy on a held-out annotation set and a quality analysis of the LLM cleaning step before the benchmark can be considered reliable.
  2. [Section VI-A and VI-B] The evaluation protocol is not sufficient to support the word 'significantly' in the RQ1 conclusion. All numbers in Table III come from a single leave-one-out split with no error bars, no multiple random seeds, and no significance tests. Furthermore, the hyperparameters (rebuilt neighbors, RGAT layers, task-adaptive threshold) are tuned by grid search, but no validation split is described; this creates a risk of test-set contamination. The observed advantage over the strongest baseline, LightSANs, is HR@10 0.7302 vs. 0.7069 and NDCG@10 0.4646 vs. 0.4540, which could easily be within run-to-run variance. Please add validation-based hyperparameter selection, report results over multiple seeds with standard deviations, and run paired significance tests.
  3. [Table IV and Section VI-C] The ablation study contradicts the prose. The text in Section VI-C states that 'removing any component invariably diminishes medical examination recommendation efficacy' and that removing the diffusion module causes a decline, but Table IV shows that 'w/o. Diffusion' achieves HR@10 0.7338, which is higher than Ours at 0.7302, and NDCG@10 0.4639 vs. 0.4646. Thus the ablation provides no evidence that the diffusion module is beneficial, and the claim that every component contributes is false as stated. The authors must either reconcile this discrepancy with corrected experiments or temper the claim about the diffusion component's contribution.
  4. [Section IV-A] The derivation of the denoised subgraph G_d is underspecified and appears to involve a distributional mismatch. The forward process in Eq. (1)-(3) adds continuous Gaussian noise to x_0, which is the binary adjacency matrix A, and the reverse process in Eq. (7)-(8) predicts x_0 with a squared-error loss. For binary adjacency entries, a Gaussian likelihood is misspecified. More importantly, the paper never defines how the continuous prediction x_0 is converted into the discrete subgraph G_d used by RGAT; the later hyperparameter 'number of patients' rebuilt neighbors' in Section VI-E suggests a top-k thresholding step, but this step is not formalized in the method section. Please specify the exact mapping from predicted x_0 to G_d and justify the Gaussian assumption for binary data, or adopt a discrete diffusion formulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI-C] The first bullet under the ablation study lists 'w/o. cross-attention' but describes it as removing the task-adaptive diffusion model. This label-description mismatch should be corrected, especially because Section VI-D uses 'w/o. cross-attention' for the linear fusion variant.
  2. [Section III Definition 2] The adjacency matrix A is defined as |U| x (|V|-|U|), but the RGAT in Section IV-B.1 operates on relations r_{m,n} among all entity types. Please clarify how the initial graph is extended to edges between all node types and how relation types are assigned to those edges.
  3. [Equation (10)] The quantities ∇L_rec and ∇L'_rec are not defined precisely; 'difference between the current training step and the last step' is ambiguous (loss difference versus gradient norm). Please provide formal definitions so the sign convention in Eq. (10) and the surrounding text can be checked.
  4. [Section VI-E.3] The text says the threshold range is [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0], while Section VI-A lists the grid search range as [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0]. Please unify these ranges.
  5. [Various] There are minor typos: 'V omiting' in Table I, and 'GSCAN' in Table III appears as 'GCSAN' in the baselines list and the reference. Also, for a claimed benchmark contribution, a public dataset URL or hosting plan should be provided; otherwise the dataset contribution is not reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: DST-GKAN is trained on observed interactions and evaluated on held-out next examinations, and no derivation step reduces to its own input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is an empirical training/evaluation pipeline rather than a formal derivation: a task-adaptive diffusion model denoises the heterogeneous EHR graph, RGAT and a KAN-based Transformer encode spatial and temporal features, an inner product produces recommendation scores, and a cross-entropy loss is optimized on training interactions (Eqs. 1-20). The final claim of state-of-the-art performance is measured by leave-one-out evaluation where the last examination interaction of each patient is held out and ranked against 99 sampled negatives (Section VI-A), so the reported HR/NDCG numbers are not forced by any fitted parameter or by the training objective. The task-adaptive mechanism does use the recommendation loss L_rec to gate diffusion training (Eqs. 10-11), but the ablation comparison and final ranking are on held-out interactions, so this is a training-feedback design rather than a prediction that reduces to its input by construction. The only self-citation ([23], a prior next-basket recommendation paper by overlapping authors) appears in related work as a recent example and is not load-bearing for any model choice, dataset claim, or uniqueness assertion. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is renamed as a new contribution. Concerns about MeExam's construction, such as the absence of reported NER precision/recall or LLM-cleaning agreement, are benchmark-validity and correctness risks, not circularity: they do not make any stated result equivalent to its assumptions by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or external entities are introduced. The model components (KANsformer, denoised subgraph) are internal architectural constructs, not independently falsifiable entities. The main assumptions are about dataset fidelity and the validity of the heuristic task-adaptive mechanism.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of rebuilt neighbors = 40
    Grid search over [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] on MeExam (Section VI-E1).
  • Task-adaptive threshold epsilon = 0.2
    Grid search over [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0] (Section VI-E3).
  • Number of RGAT layers L = 2 or 3
    Grid search over [1, 2, 3, 4], with 2 or 3 reported as optimal (Section VI-E2).
  • Diffusion scheduler hyperparameters s, alpha_low, alpha_up, T = not reported
    Defined in Eq. 4 and tuned, but no values are given in the paper.
  • Regularization coefficient lambda = not reported
    Appears in Eq. 20, but no value or tuning range is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MIMIC-III clinical notes contain enough disease, symptom, and examination entities, and the NEEDLE/ClinicalBERT plus LLM pipeline preserves them accurately.
    MeExam labels are produced entirely by NER and LLM refinement; no extraction F1 or human validation is reported, so evaluation inherits pipeline errors.
  • domain assumption The patient's next examination is predictable from the preceding sequence and personal attributes.
    Definition 1 and the leave-one-out split assume examination recommendation is a well-defined sequential prediction task.
  • ad hoc to paper The task-adaptive threshold rule r(L_rec) reliably detects when the denoised subgraph helps downstream training.
    Eq. 10 is a heuristic based on loss gradient comparisons; no theoretical or empirical justification is provided.
  • domain assumption Applying Gaussian diffusion forward and reverse processes to a binary adjacency matrix is a valid denoising strategy for the graph.
    Eqs. (1)-(5) use the standard DDPM reparameterization, but extending it to discrete adjacency entries is assumed unproblematic without analysis.
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theory justifies replacing transformer feed-forward layers with learnable spline KANs.
    Inherited from KAN in [8]; the paper relies on this motivation without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion-driven SpatioTemporal Graph KANsformer for Medical Examination Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHJQ3GAH

@misc{pith2026250507431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion-driven SpatioTemporal Graph KANsformer for Medical Examination Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHJQ3GAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07431}
}
read the original abstract

Recommendation systems in AI-based medical diagnostics and treatment constitute a critical component of AI in healthcare. Although some studies have explored this area and made notable progress, healthcare recommendation systems remain in their nascent stage. And these researches mainly target the treatment process such as drug or disease recommendations. In addition to the treatment process, the diagnostic process, particularly determining which medical examinations are necessary to evaluate the condition, also urgently requires intelligent decision support. To bridge this gap, we first formalize the task of medical examination recommendations. Compared to traditional recommendations, the medical examination recommendation involves more complex interactions. This complexity arises from two folds: 1) The historical medical records for examination recommendations are heterogeneous and redundant, which makes the recommendation results susceptible to noise. 2) The correlation between the medical history of patients is often irregular, making it challenging to model spatiotemporal dependencies. Motivated by the above observation, we propose a novel Diffusion-driven SpatioTemporal Graph KANsformer for Medical Examination Recommendation (DST-GKAN) with a two-stage learning paradigm to solve the above challenges. In the first stage, we exploit a task-adaptive diffusion model to distill recommendation-oriented information by reducing the noises in heterogeneous medical data. In the second stage, a spatiotemporal graph KANsformer is proposed to simultaneously model the complex spatial and temporal relationships. Moreover, to facilitate the medical examination recommendation research, we introduce a comprehensive dataset. The experimental results demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of the proposed method compared to various competitive baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Toy examples of medical examination recommendation. (a) com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of proposed Diffusion-driven SpatioTemporal Graph KANsformers (DST-GKAN) model. It comprises two stages. (1) Task-adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The illustration of forward (noising) and reverse (denoising) processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The framework of the proposed KANsformer. The KANs is integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The framework of MeExam: i) The few-shot NER framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entity type distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Entity frequency distribution of MeExam. The inner circle represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of task adaptive mechanism and cross-attention fusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of hyperparameter sensitivity. 2) The Number of RGAT Layers: The number of RGAT layers is pivotal in the DST-GKAN model, as it dictates the depth of spatial feature mining. Increasing these layers enables DST-GKAN to delve into more complex collaborative filter…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A case study to show the reasonableness of our proposed DST [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Property-based collaborative filtering for health-aware recom- mender systems,

    M. L ´opez-Nores, Y . Blanco-Fern´andez, J. J. Pazos-Arias, and A. Gil- Solla, “Property-based collaborative filtering for health-aware recom- mender systems,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 7451–7457, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Gamenet: Graph aug- mented memory networks for recommending medication combination,

    J. Shang, C. Xiao, T. Ma, H. Li, and J. Sun, “Gamenet: Graph aug- mented memory networks for recommending medication combination,” inproceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 1126–1133

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Patient subtyping via time-aware lstm networks,

    I. M. Baytas, C. Xiao, X. Zhang, F. Wang, A. K. Jain, and J. Zhou, “Patient subtyping via time-aware lstm networks,” inProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2017, pp. 65–74

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Mime: Multilevel medical embedding of electronic health records for predictive healthcare,

    E. Choi, C. Xiao, W. Stewart, and J. Sun, “Mime: Multilevel medical embedding of electronic health records for predictive healthcare,”Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Health-atm: A deep architecture for multifaceted patient health record representation and risk prediction,

    T. Ma, C. Xiao, and F. Wang, “Health-atm: A deep architecture for multifaceted patient health record representation and risk prediction,” inProceedings of the 2018 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 2018, pp. 261–269

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015, pp. 2256–2265

    2015

  8. [8]

    Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks,

    Z. Liu, Y . Wang, S. Vaidya, F. Ruehle, J. Halverson, M. Solja ˇci´c, T. Y . Hou, and M. Tegmark, “Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19756, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Gate: graph-attention augmented temporal neural network for medication recommendation,

    C. Su, S. Gao, and S. Li, “Gate: graph-attention augmented temporal neural network for medication recommendation,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 125 447–125 458, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Leap: learning to prescribe effective and safe treatment combinations for multimorbidity,

    Y . Zhang, R. Chen, J. Tang, W. F. Stewart, and J. Sun, “Leap: learning to prescribe effective and safe treatment combinations for multimorbidity,” inproceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge Discovery and data Mining, 2017, pp. 1315–1324

    2017

  3. [11]

    4sdrug: Symptom-based set-to-set small and safe drug recommendation,

    Y . Tan, C. Kong, L. Yu, P. Li, C. Chen, X. Zheng, V . S. Hertzberg, and C. Yang, “4sdrug: Symptom-based set-to-set small and safe drug recommendation,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2022, pp. 3970–3980

    2022

  4. [12]

    Large language model distilling medication recommendation model,

    Q. Liu, X. Wu, X. Zhao, Y . Zhu, Z. Zhang, F. Tian, and Y . Zheng, “Large language model distilling medication recommendation model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02803, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Retain: An interpretable predictive model for healthcare using reverse time attention mechanism,

    E. Choi, M. T. Bahadori, J. Sun, J. Kulas, A. Schuetz, and W. Stewart, “Retain: An interpretable predictive model for healthcare using reverse time attention mechanism,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO....

    2016

  6. [14]

    Tahdnet: Time-aware hier- archical dependency network for medication recommendation,

    Y . Su, Y . Shi, W. Lee, L. Cheng, and H. Guo, “Tahdnet: Time-aware hier- archical dependency network for medication recommendation,”Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 129, p. 104069, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Multi- channel fusion lstm for medical event prediction using ehrs,

    S. Liu, X. Wang, Y . Xiang, H. Xu, H. Wang, and B. Tang, “Multi- channel fusion lstm for medical event prediction using ehrs,”Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 127, p. 104011, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Dual-granularity medication recommendation based on causal inference,

    S. Liang, X. Li, C. Li, Y . Lei, Y . Hou, and T. Ma, “Dual-granularity medication recommendation based on causal inference,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00880, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Improving clinical decision making with a two- stage recommender system,

    S. Raza and C. Ding, “Improving clinical decision making with a two- stage recommender system,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1180–1190, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Using AI-generated suggestions from ChatGPT to optimize clinical decision support,

    S. Liu, A. P. Wright, B. L. Patterson, J. P. Wanderer, R. W. Turer, S. D. Nelson, A. B. McCoy, D. F. Sittig, and A. Wright, “Using AI-generated suggestions from ChatGPT to optimize clinical decision support,”Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 30, no....

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Doctor specific tag recommendation for online medical record management,

    Y . Wang, S. Ge, X. Zhao, X. Wu, T. Xu, C. Ma, and Z. Zheng, “Doctor specific tag recommendation for online medical record management,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Com...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Drgan: A gan- based framework for doctor recommendation in chinese on-line qa communities,

    B. Tian, Y . Zhang, X. Chen, C. Xing, and C. Li, “Drgan: A gan- based framework for doctor recommendation in chinese on-line qa communities,” inDatabase Systems for Advanced Applications, G. Li, J. Yang, J. Gama, J. Natwichai, and Y . Tong, Eds. Cham: Springer International Pu...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ddr: Dialogue based doctor recommendation for online medical service,

    Z. Zheng, Z. Qiu, H. Xiong, X. Wu, T. Xu, E. Chen, and X. Zhao, “Ddr: Dialogue based doctor recommendation for online medical service,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Com...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Dataset regeneration for sequential recommendation,

    M. Yin, H. Wang, W. Guo, Y . Liu, S. Zhang, S. Zhao, D. Lian, and E. Chen, “Dataset regeneration for sequential recommendation,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2024, pp. 3954–3965

    2024

  15. [23]

    Dual-tower model with semantic perception and timespan-coupled hypergraph for next-basket recommendation,

    Y . Zhou, H. Chu, Q. Li, J. Li, S. Zhang, F. Zhu, J. Hu, L. Wang, and W. Yang, “Dual-tower model with semantic perception and timespan-coupled hypergraph for next-basket recommendation,”Neural Networks, vol. 184, p. 107001, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect...

    2025

  16. [24]

    3d convolutional networks for session- based recommendation with content features,

    T. X. Tuan and T. M. Phuong, “3d convolutional networks for session- based recommendation with content features,” inProceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems, 2017, pp. 138–146

    2017

  17. [25]

    Cosrec: 2d convolutional neural networks for sequential recommendation,

    A. Yan, S. Cheng, W.-C. Kang, M. Wan, and J. McAuley, “Cosrec: 2d convolutional neural networks for sequential recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, 2019, pp. 2173–2176

    2019

  18. [26]

    Personalized top-n sequential recommendation via convolutional sequence embedding,

    J. Tang and K. Wang, “Personalized top-n sequential recommendation via convolutional sequence embedding,” inProceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2018, pp. 565–573

    2018

  19. [27]

    A simple convolutional generative network for next item recommendation,

    F. Yuan, A. Karatzoglou, I. Arapakis, J. M. Jose, and X. He, “A simple convolutional generative network for next item recommendation,” in Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2019, pp. 582–590

    2019

  20. [28]

    Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks,

    B. Hidasi, A. Karatzoglou, L. Baltrunas, and D. Tikk, “Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks,” 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Recurrent neural networks with top- k gains for session-based recommendations,

    B. Hidasi and A. Karatzoglou, “Recurrent neural networks with top- k gains for session-based recommendations,” inProceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, 2018, pp. 843–852

    2018

  22. [30]

    A dual-stage attention-based recurrent neural network for time series prediction,

    Y . Qin, D. Song, H. Chen, W. Cheng, G. Jiang, and G. Cottrell, “A dual-stage attention-based recurrent neural network for time series prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02971, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Neural attentive session-based recommendation,

    J. Li, P. Ren, Z. Chen, Z. Ren, T. Lian, and J. Ma, “Neural attentive session-based recommendation,” inProceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2017, pp. 1419–1428

    2017

  24. [32]

    Core: simple and effective session-based recommendation within consistent representation space,

    Y . Hou, B. Hu, Z. Zhang, and W. X. Zhao, “Core: simple and effective session-based recommendation within consistent representation space,” inProceedings of the 45th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 2022, pp. 1796–1801

    2022

  25. [33]

    S3-rec: Self-supervised learning for sequential recom- mendation with mutual information maximization,

    K. Zhou, H. Wang, W. X. Zhao, Y . Zhu, S. Wang, F. Zhang, Z. Wang, and J.-R. Wen, “S3-rec: Self-supervised learning for sequential recom- mendation with mutual information maximization,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge manageme...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Self-attentive sequential recommenda- tion,

    W.-C. Kang and J. McAuley, “Self-attentive sequential recommenda- tion,” in2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM). IEEE, 2018, pp. 197–206

    2018

  27. [35]

    Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer,

    F. Sun, J. Liu, J. Wu, C. Pei, X. Lin, W. Ou, and P. Jiang, “Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM international confer- ence on information and knowledge management, 2019, pp. 1441–1450

    2019

  28. [36]

    Graph contextualized self-attention network for session-based recommendation

    C. Xu, P. Zhao, Y . Liu, V . S. Sheng, J. Xu, F. Zhuang, J. Fang, and X. Zhou, “Graph contextualized self-attention network for session-based recommendation.” inIJCAI, vol. 19, 2019, pp. 3940–3946

    2019

  29. [37]

    Lighter and better: low-rank decomposed self-attention networks for next-item recommendation,

    X. Fan, Z. Liu, J. Lian, W. X. Zhao, X. Xie, and J.-R. Wen, “Lighter and better: low-rank decomposed self-attention networks for next-item recommendation,” inProceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 2021, ...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Diffusion recommender model,

    W. Wang, Y . Xu, F. Feng, X. Lin, X. He, and T.-S. Chua, “Diffusion recommender model,” inProceedings of the 46th International ACM SI- GIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2023, pp. 832–841

    2023

  31. [39]

    A guide for the utilization of health insurance review and assessment service national patient samples,

    L. Kim, J.-A. Kim, and S. Kim, “A guide for the utilization of health insurance review and assessment service national patient samples,” Epidemiology and health, vol. 36, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database,

    A. E. Johnson, T. J. Pollard, L. Shen, L.-w. H. Lehman, M. Feng, M. Ghassemi, B. Moody, P. Szolovits, L. Anthony Celi, and R. G. Mark, “Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database,”Scientific data, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Mimic- iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset,

    A. E. Johnson, L. Bulgarelli, L. Shen, A. Gayles, A. Shammout, S. Horng, T. J. Pollard, S. Hao, B. Moody, B. Gowet al., “Mimic- iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset,”Scientific data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 1, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    The eicu collaborative research database, a freely available multi-center database for critical care research,

    T. J. Pollard, A. E. Johnson, J. D. Raffa, L. A. Celi, R. G. Mark, and O. Badawi, “The eicu collaborative research database, a freely available multi-center database for critical care research,”Scientific data, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals,

    A. L. Goldberger, L. A. Amaral, L. Glass, J. M. Hausdorff, P. C. Ivanov, R. G. Mark, J. E. Mietus, G. B. Moody, C.-K. Peng, and H. E. Stanley, “Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals,”circulation, vol. 10...

    2000

  36. [44]

    Using features from pre- trained timenet for clinical predictions

    P. Gupta, P. Malhotra, L. Vig, and G. Shroff, “Using features from pre- trained timenet for clinical predictions.” inKDH@ IJCAI, 2018, pp. 38–44

    2018

  37. [45]

    Seqcare: Sequential training with external medical knowledge graph for diagnosis prediction in healthcare data,

    Y . Xu, X. Chu, K. Yang, Z. Wang, P. Zou, H. Ding, J. Zhao, Y . Wang, and B. Xie, “Seqcare: Sequential training with external medical knowledge graph for diagnosis prediction in healthcare data,” inProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 2023, pp. 2819–2830

    2023

  38. [46]

    Diffkg: Knowledge graph diffusion model for recommendation,

    Y . Jiang, Y . Yang, L. Xia, and C. Huang, “Diffkg: Knowledge graph diffusion model for recommendation,” inProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 2024, pp. 313–321

    2024

  39. [47]

    Debiased contrastive learning for sequential recommendation,

    Y . Yang, C. Huang, L. Xia, C. Huang, D. Luo, and K. Lin, “Debiased contrastive learning for sequential recommendation,” inProceedings of the ACM web conference 2023, 2023, pp. 1063–1073

    2023

  40. [48]

    Attention is all you need,

    V . Ashish, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, p. I, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    A multimodal graph recommen- dation method based on cross-attention fusion,

    K. Li, L. Xu, C. Zhu, and K. Zhang, “A multimodal graph recommen- dation method based on cross-attention fusion,”Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 15, p. 2353, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Attention- rectified and texture-enhanced cross-attention transformer feature fusion network for facial expression recognition,

    M. Sun, W. Cui, Y . Zhang, S. Yu, X. Liao, B. Hu, and Y . Li, “Attention- rectified and texture-enhanced cross-attention transformer feature fusion network for facial expression recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Indus- trial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 11 823–11 832, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Icafusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection,

    J. Shen, Y . Chen, Y . Liu, X. Zuo, H. Fan, and W. Yang, “Icafusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 145, p. 109913, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Casf-net: Cross-attention and cross-scale fusion network for medical image segmentation,

    J. Zheng, H. Liu, Y . Feng, J. Xu, and L. Zhao, “Casf-net: Cross-attention and cross-scale fusion network for medical image segmentation,”Com- puter Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 229, p. 107307, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Crossvit: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,

    C.-F. R. Chen, Q. Fan, and R. Panda, “Crossvit: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 357– 366. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14

    2021

  46. [54]

    When multi-behavior meets multi-interest: Multi-behavior sequential recommendation with multi- interest self-supervised learning,

    B. Wu, Y . Cheng, H. Yuan, and Q. Ma, “When multi-behavior meets multi-interest: Multi-behavior sequential recommendation with multi- interest self-supervised learning,” in2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2024, pp. 845–858

    2024

  47. [55]

    Structure- and logic- aware heterogeneous graph learning for recommendation,

    A. Li, B. Yang, H. Huo, F. K. Hussain, and G. Xu, “Structure- and logic- aware heterogeneous graph learning for recommendation,” in2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2024, pp. 544–556

    2024

  48. [56]

    Bsl: Un- derstanding and improving softmax loss for recommendation,

    J. Wu, J. Chen, J. Wu, W. Shi, J. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Bsl: Un- derstanding and improving softmax loss for recommendation,” in2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2024, pp. 816–830

    2024

  49. [57]

    Cross-entropy loss functions: Theoretical analysis and applications,

    A. Mao, M. Mohri, and Y . Zhong, “Cross-entropy loss functions: Theoretical analysis and applications,” inInternational conference on Machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 23 803–23 828

    2023

  50. [58]

    Named entity recognition with small strongly labeled and large weakly labeled data,

    H. Jiang, D. Zhang, T. Cao, B. Yin, and T. Zhao, “Named entity recognition with small strongly labeled and large weakly labeled data,” inAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings,

    E. Alsentzer, J. Murphy, W. Boag, W.-H. Weng, D. Jin, T. Naumann, and M. McDermott, “Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings,” inProceedings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, Ju...

    2019

  52. [60]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkatet al., “Gpt-4 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools,

    T. GLM, A. Zeng, B. Xu, B. Wang, C. Zhang, D. Yin, D. Rojas, G. Feng, H. Zhao, H. Laiet al., “Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12793, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Are id embeddings nec- essary? whitening pre-trained text embeddings for effective sequential recommendation,

    L. Zhang, X. Zhou, Z. Zeng, and Z. Shen, “Are id embeddings nec- essary? whitening pre-trained text embeddings for effective sequential recommendation,” in2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2024, pp. 530–543

    2024

  55. [63]

    Ssdrec: Self-augmented sequence denoising for sequential recommendation,

    C. Zhang, Q. Han, R. Chen, X. Zhao, P. Tang, and H. Song, “Ssdrec: Self-augmented sequence denoising for sequential recommendation,” in 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2024, pp. 803–815

    2024

  56. [64]

    Adapting large language models by integrating collaborative semantics for recommendation,

    B. Zheng, Y . Hou, H. Lu, Y . Chen, W. X. Zhao, M. Chen, and J.-R. Wen, “Adapting large language models by integrating collaborative semantics for recommendation,” in2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2024, pp. 1435–1448

    2024

  57. [65]

    Neural col- laborative filtering,

    X. He, L. Liao, H. Zhang, L. Nie, X. Hu, and T.-S. Chua, “Neural col- laborative filtering,” inProceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, 2017, pp. 173–182

    2017

  58. [66]

    Deep learning based rec- ommender system: A survey and new perspectives,

    S. Zhang, L. Yao, A. Sun, and Y . Tay, “Deep learning based rec- ommender system: A survey and new perspectives,”ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Sequential recommendation with user causal behavior discovery,

    Z. Wang, X. Chen, R. Zhou, Q. Dai, Z. Dong, and J.-R. Wen, “Sequential recommendation with user causal behavior discovery,” in2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2023, pp. 28–40. Jianan Liis a Lecturer in the School of Computer Science and Techn...

    2023

  60. [2020]

    Qinglan Huangreceived his B.S

    His research interests are deep learning, video understanding and compressive sensing. Qinglan Huangreceived his B.S. degree from the School of Electrical Engineering and Information at Southwest Petroleum University, China, in 2021. He is currently pursuing a Master’s degree ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.