ProbMed: A Probabilistic Framework for Medical Multimodal Binding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical decision-making requires integrating diverse medical information, from imaging to clinical narratives. These medical modalities are often acquired in a many-to-many manner. However, current medical vision-language pretraining models (Med-VLPMs) fail to directly account for this many-to-many mapping in their model training and embeddings. To address this, we present Probabilistic Modality-Enhanced Diagnosis (ProbMED), a multimodal Med-VLPM that employs probabilistic contrastive learning to model distributions over embeddings rather than deterministic estimates. ProbMED aligns four distinct modalities -- chest X-rays, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and clinical text -- into a unified probabilistic embedding space. We use InfoNCE loss with Hellinger distance to integrate inter-modality distributions. We introduce a probabilistic synthetic sampling loss that captures modality-specific mean and variance to improve intra-modality binding. Extensive experiments across 13 medical datasets demonstrate that our model outperforms current Med-VLPMs in cross-modality retrieval, zero-shot, and few-shot classification. We also demonstrate the robust integration of multiple modalities for prognostication, showing improved intra- and inter-medical modality binding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".