Temporal Inversion for Learning Interval Change in Chest X-Rays
Authors: Hanbin Ko, Kyungmin Jeon, Doowoong Choi, Chang Min Park
Organizations: Interdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Seoul National University Graduate School · Integrated Major in Innovative Medical Science, Seoul National University Graduate School · Dept. of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital · Seoul National University College of Medicine · Inst. of Medical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University Medical Research Center
Recent advances in vision--language pretraining have enabled strong medical foundation models, yet most analyze radiographs in isolation, overlooking the key clinical task of comparing prior and current images to assess interval change. For chest radiographs (CXRs), capturing interval change is essential, as radiologists must evaluate not only the static appearance of findings but also how they evolve over time. We introduce TILA (Temporal Inversion-aware Learning and Alignment), a simple yet effective framework that uses temporal inversion, reversing image pairs, as a supervisory signal to enhance the sensitivity of existing temporal vision-language models to directional change. TILA integrates inversion-aware objectives across pretraining, fine-tuning, and inference, complementing conventional appearance modeling with explicit learning of temporal order. We also propose a unified evaluation protocol to assess order sensitivity and consistency under temporal inversion, and introduce MS-CXR-Tretrieval, a retrieval evaluation set constructed through a general protocol that can be applied to any temporal CXR dataset. Experiments on public datasets and real-world hospital cohorts demonstrate that TILA consistently improves progression classification and temporal embedding alignment when applied to multiple existing architectures.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: TILA Framework: Temporal Inversion-aware Learning and Alignment. The framework comprises three stages: pretraining, fine-tuning, and inference. (a–b) Pretraining: paired CXRs are encoded in both original and reversed orders; the Change-aware Sigmoid Loss aligns unchanged cases and separates changed ones. (c) Fine-tuning: the Bidirectional Cross-Entropy (BiCE) enforces label inversion, while the Temporal Consistency Loss (TCL) aligns probability distributions under reversal. (d) Inference: forward and reversed predictions are fused via inversion-aware scoring to enhance robustness and order consistency.
Model
MIMIC Retrieval
CheXpert Retrieval
I2T
T2I
TEM
I2T
T2I
TEM
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
Single-image VLPs
Ko & Park. [ 11 ]
6.6
23.2
33.8
8.4
24.5
34.7
7.4
6.2±0.1
16.1±0.2
24.7±0.1
6.6±0.2
15.9±0.2
23.0±0.2
5.7±0.4
BioViL-T (single image) [ 1 ]
3.1
10.7
17.9
3.7
11.3
18.4
3.5
2.4±0.1
8.9±0.2
14.8±0.2
2.6±0.2
7.6±0.1
13.2±0.1
4.2±0.3
ALTA (single image) [ 13 ]
6.5
18.2
27.2
11.0
28.7
41.3
9.0
6.3±0.1
17.9±0.2
26.1±0.2
8.2±0.2
22.7±0.1
32.1±0.1
10.2±0.3
Table 1: Single vs. paired-image retrieval on MIMIC and CheXpert. Retrieval performance (Recall@k for I2T/T2I) and TEM score. Single-image models process only the current image, whereas paired-image models encode ( prev , cur ). For each backbone, SigLIP denotes retraining with the sigmoid contrastive loss (baseline), and TILA adds the Change-aware Sigmoid Loss. CheXpert results are reported as mean and 95% CI across ten random subsamples of 3,000 paired CXRs.
Model
Standard
Reversed
Combined
Consistency
CON
PE
PNE
PTX
EDE
Avg
CON
PE
PNE
PTX
EDE
Avg
CON
PE
PNE
PTX
EDE
Avg
CON
PE
PNE
PTX
EDE
Avg
MS-CXR-T retrieval
BioViL-T [ 1 ]
49.1
42.8
38.3
33.1
51.8
43.1
42.8
51.7
45.1
36.2
48.2
44.8
53.7
54.3
50.8
37.1
59.8
51.2
23.4
21.9
21.7
10.1
29.2
21.3
BioViL-T SigLIP
48.9
58.3
55.6
34.4
53.6
50.2
51.7
53.2
61.0
38.1
50.7
51.0
55.6
60.0
64.5
39.0
58.1
55.5
32.8
35.3
40.1
14.2
41.0
32.7
BioViL-T TILA
55.3
58.7
58.1
40.3
58.0
54.1
55.9
59.0
61.5
37.0
56.5
54.0
58.8
62.4
65.9
46.5
62.5
59.3
39.8
39.9
43.0
22.8
44.0
37.9
ALTA [ 13 ]
46.8
33.9
36.0
31.1
40.4
37.7
44.2
47.4
43.1
37.9
41.5
42.9
54.0
54.4
60.9
35.4
51.3
51.2
18.4
11.0
9.3
4.7
10.5
10.8
Table 2: Interval-change classification results on MS-CXR-T and a private cohort. We report macro-accuracy (%) for five findings— CON : consolidation, PE : pleural effusion, PNE : pneumonia, PTX : pneumothorax, and EDE : edema—together with the average across findings for each evaluation protocol ( Standard , Reversed , Combined , Consistency ; see Section 3.3 ). For retrieval and zero-shot classification, TILA models use only the Change-aware Sigmoid pretraining loss, while in supervised settings they additionally apply inversion-aware fine-tuning (BiCE and TCL). SigLIP denotes our re-trained baselines using the sigmoid contrastive loss, and TILA refers to the corresponding models augmented with inversion-aware objectives.
Figure 2: Score Distribution Analysis for Pleural Effusion (MS-CXR-T). Distribution of prediction scores (scaled by 10) for each pleural effusion progression label, comparing baseline and TILA models in the zero-shot setting. Each boxplot separates cases by progression label ( improved , stable , worsened ) and label quality ( consensus vs. disagreement ), shown for both standard and inversion-aware (combined) scoring. Key trends illustrated: i) Changes in scores for each label ( improved , stable , worsened ). ii) Impact of applying inversion-aware scoring (combined). iii) Differences in scores based on label quality ( consensus vs. disagreement ).
Variant
Standard
Reversed
Combined
Consistency
BioViL-T (CLIP)
60.1
53.0
60.5
42.1
+ SigLIP (Baseline)
61.1
53.3
59.6
39.5
+ Change-aware SigLIP (Ours)
64.6
58.3
63.4
45.4
+ BiCE
65.2
62.0
63.4
53.1
+ BiCE + TCL
64.1
63.7
63.6
57.4
Table 3: Ablation of temporal inversion components. Each cell reports the mean macro-accuracy (%) across the five findings (CON, PE, PNE, PTX, EDE) for the indicated evaluation protocol.
Model
Mode
Test Set AUC
Private
RexGradient
BioViL-T
Fine-tune
0.734
0.565
BioViL-T
Linear probe
0.693
0.545
BioViL-T TILA
Fine-tune
0.765
0.702
BioViL-T TILA
Linear probe
0.756
0.681
Table 4: Binary interval-change screening on two external test sets. AUC is reported for fine-tuning and linear probing modes.
Train
Validation
Test
MIMIC
183,302
1,330
2,871
CheXpert
-
-
123,374
Private
-
-
2,233
Table 5: Data Distribution for MIMIC, CheXpert, and Private
Figure 3: Example workflow for constructing MS-CXR-T retrieval from the original benchmark.
Dataset
Label 0
Label 1
Total
CheXpert
49,591
53,505
103,096
MIMIC
22,527
45,370
67,897
RexGradient
8,902
10,921
19,823
Private
5,000
5,000
10,000
Table 6: Binary interval-change label distribution. Label 0 denotes no change and Label 1 denotes change .
W
Average Accuracy (%)
Standard
Reversed
Combined
Consistency
0
50.2
50.9
55.4
32.7
0.5
54.9
53.2
59.1
36.6
1
54.1
54.0
59.2
37.9
2
49.7
51.2
54.3
33.1
Table 7: Effect of pretraining weight W on MS-CXR-T retrieval . We report average macro-accuracy (%) across all findings for each evaluation protocol.
λ
Average Accuracy (%)
Standard
Reversed
Combined
Consistency
Base
61.1
53.3
59.6
39.5
0
65.2
62.0
63.4
53.1
1
65.0
61.2
63.1
53.3
50
64.1
63.7
63.6
57.3
100
62.7
63.8
61.4
55.6
Table 8: Effect of fine-tuning weight λ on MS-CXR-T supervised classification. We report average macro-accuracy (%) across all findings for each evaluation protocol.
Chest radiograph interpretation requires temporal reasoning over prior and current studies, yet most vision-language models are trained on static image-report pairs and lack explicit supervision for modeling longitudinal change. We introduce CheXTemporal, a dataset for temporally grounded reasoning in chest radiography consisting of paired prior-current chest X-rays (CXR) with finding-level temporal and spatial annotations. The dataset includes a five-class progression taxonomy (new, worse, stable, improved, resolved), localized spatial supervision of pathology, explicit spatial-temporal alignment across paired studies, and multi-source coverage for cross-domain evaluation. We additionally construct a 280K-pair silver dataset with automatically derived temporal and anatomical supervision for large-scale evaluation under weaker supervision. Using these resources, we evaluate multiple state-of-the-art vision-language CXR models on grounding and progression-classification tasks in a zero-shot setting. Across both gold and silver evaluations, current models exhibit consistent limitations in spatial grounding, fine-grained temporal reasoning, and robustness under distribution shift. In particular, models perform substantially better on salient progression categories such as worse than on temporally subtle states such as stable and resolved, suggesting limited modeling of longitudinal disease evolution in chest radiography.
Eva Prakash, Yunhe Gao, Chong Wang +10
Stanford University · University of Oxford · University of California, Berkeley +2
Medical vision-language pre-training largely follows a visit-level image-report matching paradigm, aligning paired images and reports at individual visits. While effective for static cross-modal correspondence, this paradigm provides limited supervision for longitudinal clinical change, such as whether abnormalities improve, remain stable, or worsen over time. Learning such change is challenging because temporal semantics are implicit in free-text reports, and different abnormalities within the same patient may evolve asynchronously or even in opposite directions. We propose MedCTA, which reframes medical vision-language pre-training from visit-level cross-modal matching to learning clinical change. Rather than compressing a patient history into a single temporal representation, MedCTA models clinical change at two complementary scopes. At the abnormality scope, clinically grounded queries construct abnormality-conditioned visual and textual trajectories to capture heterogeneous abnormality evolution. At the patient-course scope, global image and report sequences are modeled to capture overall clinical progression beyond any individual abnormality. Structured trend supervision is extracted from longitudinal reports by an offline LLM parser, removing the need for manual temporal annotations. Combined with static image-report alignment, MedCTA learns representations that preserve visit-level cross-modal correspondence while encoding longitudinal change semantics. Experiments on temporal image classification, image-text retrieval, and zero-shot classification show consistent gains over strong medical vision-language baselines.
Huimin Yan, Xian Yang, Zhi Wang +1
Institute of Intelligent Information Processing, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, China · Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Despite recent advances in medical vision-language pretraining, existing models still struggle to capture the diagnostic workflow: radiographs are typically treated as context-agnostic images, while radiologists' gaze -- a crucial cue for visual reasoning -- remains largely underexplored by existing methods. These limitations hinder the modeling of disease-specific patterns and weaken cross-modal alignment. To bridge this gap, we introduce CoGaze, a Context- and Gaze-guided vision-language pretraining framework for chest X-rays. We first propose a context-infused vision encoder that models how radiologists integrate clinical context -- including patient history, symptoms, and diagnostic intent -- to guide diagnostic reasoning. We then present a multi-level supervision paradigm that (1) enforces intra- and inter-modal semantic alignment through hybrid-positive contrastive learning, (2) injects diagnostic priors via disease-aware cross-modal representation learning, and (3) leverages radiologists' gaze as probabilistic priors to guide attention toward diagnostically salient regions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CoGaze consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across diverse tasks, achieving up to +2.0% CheXbertF1 and +1.2% BLEU2 for free-text and structured report generation, +23.2% AUROC for zero-shot classification, and +12.2% Precision@1 for image-text retrieval. Code is available at https://github.com/mk-runner/CoGaze.
Kang Liu, Zhuoqi Ma, Siyu Liang +5
Xidian University, Xi’an, China · Wuhan University, Wuhan, China