MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recurrent Visual Feature Extraction and Stereo Attentions for CT Report Generation

2025· article· W7126109747 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanhe Tian, Lei Mao, Yan Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)VisualizationEncoding (memory)Computed tomographyBenchmark (surveying)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generating reports for computed tomography (CT) images is a challenging task. Although it is related to existing work on medical image report generation, it exhibits several unique characteristics, including the spatial encoding of multiple images and the alignment between image volumes and text. Existing solutions typically use general 2D or 3D image processing techniques to extract features from a CT volume, where they firstly compress the volume and then divide the compressed CT slices into patches for visual encoding. These approaches do not explicitly account for the transformations among CT slices, nor do they effectively integrate multi-level image features, particularly those containing specific organ lesions, to instruct CT report generation (CTRG). In considering the strong correlation among consecutive slices in CT scans, in this paper, we propose a large language model (LLM) based CTRG method with recurrent visual feature extraction and stereo attentions for hierarchical feature modeling. Specifically, we use a vision Transformer to recurrently process each slice in a CT volume, and employ a set of attentions over the encoded slices from different perspectives to selectively obtain important visual information and align it with textual features, so as to better instruct an LLM for CTRG. Experiment results and further analysis on the benchmark M3DCap dataset show that our method outperforms strong baseline models and achieves state-of-the-art results, demonstrating its validity and effectiveness11Code is available at https://github.com/synlp/SA-CTRG

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207