Auditable CT Phenotyping Through Report-derived Radiological Observations
Authors: Riga Wu, Walter Witschey, Yicheng Li, Felix Barajas Ordonez, Keno K. Bressem, Lisa C. Adams, Gary E. Weissman, Li Shen, Christos Davatzikos, Eduardo Barbosa, Daniel Truhn, Tianyu Han
Organizations: Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Imaging Laboratory (AIBIL), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · National Center for Tumor Diseases West, Essen, Germany. · Institute of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine and Health, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Center for Artificial Intelligence and Data Science for Integrated Diagnostics (AI2D), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Medical image foundation models can predict clinical phenotypes from computed tomography (CT), but strong performance leaves open whether they read disease-specific findings or shortcuts that correlate with the diagnosis. We tested this in 221 electronic-health-record (EHR) phenotypes using Auditable CT phenotyping (ACT), built on report-derived radiological observations. We trained ACT on 38,317 patients, mined 376,194 observations and evaluated it in 25,183 held-out patients. ACT exceeded five vision-language baselines on zero-shot annotation, and CT-CLIP across 221 phenotypes from unseen CT pulmonary angiography, both under zero-shot scoring (0.651 versus 0.572) and under linear probing (0.709 versus 0.662). Reading each probe exposes what accuracy conceals: only 97 observations occupy the 221 rank-1 positions, and one phrase describing aortic and coronary calcification ranks first for 20 phenotypes, including osteoporosis, urinary tract infection and major depressive disorder. Restricting the bank to clinician-specified evidence redirects those probes onto phenotype-related observations in 86 phenotypes at no accuracy cost (0.751 versus 0.741). Accurate CT-based EHR phenotyping can therefore rest on observations that are not valid evidence for the coded phenotype and that ACT can identify and intervene on.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ACT links report-derived observations to prediction and audit. a , Training used chest CT from 20,000 CT-RATE patients and abdominal CT from 18,317 Merlin patients. PMBB, INSPECT, held-out CT-RATE and RSNA-2023 were reserved for evaluation. b , Reports were decomposed into 376,194 atomic radiological observations and embedded with F2LLM. c , For each CT, ACT’s native image-text similarities weighted the corresponding F2LLM observation embeddings to yield ACT’s normalized 5,120-dimensional concept-anchored CT representation. d – f , ACT’s native model supported zero-shot abnormality annotation ( d ), whereas ACT’s concept-anchored CT representation supported EHR phenotype classification ( e ) as well as probe-observation audit and observation-bank restriction ( f ).
Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4Figure 5
Figure 2: ACT’s observation-bank restriction redirects selected probes toward phenotype-related observations. a – h , Each module shows held-out test AUROC (left), five retained positive-weight observations (middle) and a manual contrast between an excluded candidate non-target theme (red) and a retained phenotype-related theme (blue, right). The phenotypes are pneumococcal pneumonia ( a ), CHF (NOS) ( b ), shock ( c ), hypovolemia ( d ), other pulmonary inflammation or edema ( e ), aspiration pneumonitis ( f ), asphyxia and hypoxemia ( g ) and pericarditis ( h ). Full is the full-bank probe test AUROC, and Refined is the restricted probe test AUROC. Markers show individual estimates, and data are the mean ± 1 s.d. Retained observations were chosen from the fitted restricted probe’s ten largest weights and ordered by mean projected weight across 20 training-set bootstrap refits. Displayed phrases retain near-duplicates, so a panel can show several wordings of one observation. In b the retained effusion phrases are all left-sided variants of one template, which reflects the phrasing cluster rather than a claim about side, and the restricted bank admits right-sided and bilateral effusion phrases in comparable numbers. Supplementary Table 11 reports all 86 phenotype-level AUROCs and matched patient-clustered bootstrap CIs. CHF, congestive heart failure. IVC, inferior vena cava. NOS, not otherwise specified. SMV, superior mesenteric vein.
Supplementary Fig. 1: Contrastive pretraining of ACT’s native 3D volume-report model. Each CT volume is resized and padded to 160×224×224 (slices × height × width) and represented as a sequence of axial slices. A DINOv2 ViT-B image encoder embeds each slice independently. The Transformer aggregator fθ fuses a learnable classification (CLS) token and the slice embeddings into the volume embedding zI . In parallel, a CLIP-style causal text Transformer encodes the paired radiology impression into zT . A symmetric contrastive objective aligns zI and zT during pretraining on 72,640 paired scan-report rows from 38,317 patients.
Finding
n+
ACT
Merlin
CT-CLIP
Hiatal hernia
341
0.580 (0.535, 0.623)
0.561 (0.517, 0.608)
0.706 (0.662, 0.745)
Medical material
277
0.718 (0.668, 0.767)
0.548 (0.502, 0.597)
0.704 (0.656, 0.753)
Lymphadenopathy
693
0.717 (0.683, 0.749)
0.595 (0.559, 0.625)
0.704 (0.668, 0.735)
Lung nodule
1123
0.549 (0.511, 0.585)
0.496 (0.471, 0.521)
0.584 (0.549, 0.619)
Pulmonary fibrotic sequela
673
0.592 (0.554, 0.627)
0.532 (0.494, 0.568)
0.564 (0.523, 0.603)
Lung opacity
971
0.695 (0.664, 0.726)
0.664 (0.629, 0.695)
0.627 (0.592, 0.659)
Supplementary Table 1: Zero-shot finding annotation on CT-RATE test (model panel 1 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
MedSigLIP
BiomedCLIP
OpenAI CLIP
Hiatal hernia
341
0.596 (0.552, 0.640)
0.447 (0.402, 0.490)
0.556 (0.513, 0.600)
Medical material
277
0.521 (0.485, 0.555)
0.629 (0.582, 0.678)
0.386 (0.338, 0.434)
Lymphadenopathy
693
0.624 (0.600, 0.648)
0.492 (0.455, 0.530)
0.528 (0.498, 0.560)
Lung nodule
1123
0.506 (0.472, 0.543)
0.472 (0.442, 0.502)
0.511 (0.480, 0.543)
Pulmonary fibrotic sequela
673
0.501 (0.465, 0.535)
0.526 (0.497, 0.557)
0.554 (0.517, 0.592)
Lung opacity
971
0.671 (0.638, 0.705)
0.592 (0.560, 0.622)
0.458 (0.427, 0.489)
Supplementary Table 2: Zero-shot finding annotation on CT-RATE test (model panel 2 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
ACT
Merlin
CT-CLIP
Hiatal hernia
1214
0.505 (0.487, 0.521)
0.523 (0.508, 0.542)
0.569 (0.552, 0.586)
Medical material
2420
0.705 (0.693, 0.718)
0.501 (0.487, 0.514)
0.587 (0.575, 0.599)
Lymphadenopathy
2362
0.602 (0.587, 0.616)
0.527 (0.513, 0.542)
0.550 (0.537, 0.563)
Lung nodule
6201
0.493 (0.480, 0.506)
0.535 (0.522, 0.547)
0.548 (0.536, 0.561)
Pulmonary fibrotic sequela
2554
0.667 (0.655, 0.679)
0.585 (0.571, 0.597)
0.530 (0.517, 0.542)
Lung opacity
1681
0.635 (0.622, 0.649)
0.557 (0.542, 0.573)
0.529 (0.513, 0.543)
Supplementary Table 3: Zero-shot finding annotation on PMBB chest non-contrast (model panel 1 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
MedSigLIP
BiomedCLIP
OpenAI CLIP
Hiatal hernia
1214
0.547 (0.531, 0.563)
0.478 (0.462, 0.495)
0.494 (0.477, 0.511)
Medical material
2420
0.564 (0.550, 0.579)
0.556 (0.542, 0.569)
0.422 (0.408, 0.435)
Lymphadenopathy
2362
0.579 (0.566, 0.592)
0.449 (0.435, 0.463)
0.477 (0.463, 0.491)
Lung nodule
6201
0.436 (0.422, 0.449)
0.470 (0.458, 0.483)
0.596 (0.584, 0.609)
Pulmonary fibrotic sequela
2554
0.584 (0.571, 0.596)
0.552 (0.538, 0.564)
0.505 (0.492, 0.518)
Lung opacity
1681
0.581 (0.566, 0.596)
0.531 (0.515, 0.546)
0.479 (0.464, 0.493)
Supplementary Table 4: Zero-shot finding annotation on PMBB chest non-contrast (model panel 2 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
ACT
Merlin
CT-CLIP
Hepatic Steatosis
1424
0.355 (0.340, 0.371)
0.629 (0.612, 0.644)
0.626 (0.612, 0.640)
Hepatomegaly
313
0.569 (0.534, 0.603)
0.639 (0.606, 0.670)
0.566 (0.532, 0.600)
Gallstones
1213
0.643 (0.628, 0.660)
0.530 (0.513, 0.547)
0.560 (0.545, 0.575)
Surgically Absent Gallbladder
1767
0.648 (0.637, 0.661)
0.862 (0.853, 0.871)
0.559 (0.545, 0.571)
Biliary Ductal Dilation
514
0.673 (0.649, 0.694)
0.764 (0.741, 0.785)
0.445 (0.419, 0.468)
Lymphadenopathy
1424
0.569 (0.553, 0.586)
0.599 (0.582, 0.616)
0.531 (0.516, 0.548)
Supplementary Table 5: Zero-shot finding annotation on PMBB abdomen contrast-enhanced (model panel 1 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
MedSigLIP
BiomedCLIP
OpenAI CLIP
Hepatic Steatosis
1424
0.503 (0.488, 0.517)
0.434 (0.419, 0.450)
0.577 (0.563, 0.591)
Hepatomegaly
313
0.498 (0.463, 0.534)
0.454 (0.420, 0.486)
0.531 (0.500, 0.561)
Gallstones
1213
0.560 (0.544, 0.577)
0.522 (0.505, 0.539)
0.540 (0.523, 0.555)
Surgically Absent Gallbladder
1767
0.559 (0.545, 0.573)
0.417 (0.404, 0.430)
0.568 (0.554, 0.581)
Biliary Ductal Dilation
514
0.613 (0.587, 0.638)
0.595 (0.569, 0.620)
0.465 (0.440, 0.488)
Lymphadenopathy
1424
0.540 (0.525, 0.556)
0.474 (0.459, 0.490)
0.538 (0.524, 0.554)
Supplementary Table 6: Zero-shot finding annotation on PMBB abdomen contrast-enhanced (model panel 2 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
ACT
Merlin
CT-CLIP
Low-grade kidney injury
38
0.560 (0.413, 0.689)
0.496 (0.381, 0.607)
0.625 (0.540, 0.709)
High-grade kidney injury
20
0.746 (0.628, 0.844)
0.739 (0.604, 0.853)
0.542 (0.403, 0.673)
Active extravasation
61
0.579 (0.497, 0.656)
0.633 (0.552, 0.721)
0.552 (0.477, 0.632)
Bowel injury
24
0.746 (0.599, 0.880)
0.538 (0.363, 0.711)
0.534 (0.399, 0.677)
High-grade spleen injury
39
0.655 (0.566, 0.740)
0.731 (0.639, 0.812)
0.509 (0.387, 0.631)
Low-grade spleen injury
68
0.675 (0.603, 0.745)
0.631 (0.548, 0.707)
0.511 (0.421, 0.604)
Supplementary Table 7: Zero-shot finding annotation on RSNA-2023 abdominal trauma (model panel 1 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Finding
n+
MedSigLIP
BiomedCLIP
OpenAI CLIP
Low-grade kidney injury
38
0.646 (0.533, 0.739)
0.504 (0.385, 0.616)
0.651 (0.534, 0.744)
High-grade kidney injury
20
0.665 (0.554, 0.768)
0.671 (0.490, 0.815)
0.436 (0.248, 0.627)
Active extravasation
61
0.674 (0.605, 0.743)
0.508 (0.428, 0.588)
0.411 (0.336, 0.490)
Bowel injury
24
0.664 (0.507, 0.807)
0.570 (0.421, 0.710)
0.510 (0.390, 0.636)
High-grade spleen injury
39
0.558 (0.443, 0.655)
0.487 (0.370, 0.603)
0.472 (0.381, 0.567)
Low-grade spleen injury
68
0.625 (0.527, 0.716)
0.537 (0.440, 0.620)
0.481 (0.394, 0.568)
Supplementary Table 8: Zero-shot finding annotation on RSNA-2023 abdominal trauma (model panel 2 of 2). Values are AUROC (95% percentile CI) from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples. Bold indicates the largest point estimate across all model panels for each finding. n+ is the number of positive test scans.
Supplementary Fig. 2: Cross-modal concept retrieval with ACT’s native 3D model. Rows show CT-RATE, chest PMBB, abdominal PMBB and RSNA-2023, from top to bottom, for ACT’s native model and five baselines. The left column shows concept → image pooled Recall@1/5/10 in 64-candidate pools containing one positive and 63 negative volumes, macro-averaged over findings. Random floors are 1.6%, 7.8% and 15.6%, respectively. The right column shows image → concept Recall@1/3/5 after per-finding z -scoring, averaged over scans with at least one positive finding ( n = 2,226, 8,843, 11,646 and 265, respectively). Bars are full-sample point estimates. Error bars show percentile 95% CIs from 1,000 patient-clustered bootstrap resamples shared across models.
Supplementary Fig. 3: Lexical content of ACT’s report-derived observation bank. Word clouds qualitatively summarize the 16 largest keyword-assigned categories. Larger words occur more frequently among the distinct observation strings. Category counts are shown in parentheses, colours are decorative and gastrointestinal is abbreviated as GI.
PMBB query
Rank
CT-RATE + NN affirmative
CT-RATE − NN negated
Merlin + NN affirmative
Merlin − NN negated
pulmonary nodules present Chest
1
bilateral pulmonary nodules present d=0.632
no pulmonary nodules d=0.700
pulmonary nodules d=0.539
no pulmonary nodules d=0.700
2
pulmonary nodules in both lungs d=0.705
no pulmonary nodule detected d=0.803
numerous pulmonary nodules d=0.740
no pulmonary nodules identified d=0.734
3
pulmonary nodules are observed in both lungs d=0.715
no pulmonary nodules detected in both lungs d=0.836
multiple pulmonary nodules identified d=0.741
no pulmonary nodule d=0.768
pleural effusion Chest
1
left pleural effusion d=0.722
no pleural effusion d=0.796
pleural effusions d=0.553
no pleural effusion d=0.796
2
new pleural effusion d=0.735
no pleural effusion detected d=0.866
left pleural effusion d=0.722
negative for pleural effusion d=0.841
3
pleural effusion on the left d=0.746
no pleural effusion observed d=0.880
pericardial pleural effusion d=0.723
no pleural effusions d=0.853
Supplementary Table 9: Nearest affirmative and explicitly negated observations for representative PMBB queries. The eight PMBB queries comprise four chest and four abdominal observations. Rows give the three same-finding neighbours from CT-RATE and Merlin ranked by Euclidean distance ( d , where lower is closer) between ℓ2 -normalized, 5,120-dimensional F2LLM observation vectors, before PCA or UMAP. + NN denotes an affirmative observation and − NN an explicit textual negation, not an independently verified negative clinical label. Exact matches, hedged statements, mixed-polarity or technical statements and phrases negating only change or degree were excluded. These selected examples are descriptive and do not estimate corpus-wide alignment accuracy.
Phecode
Phenotype
n+
ACT
CT-CLIP
165
Cancer within the respiratory system
145
0.842 (0.842, 0.843)
0.722 (0.722, 0.723)
165.1
Cancer of bronchus; lung
142
0.839 (0.839, 0.840)
0.716 (0.715, 0.717)
174
Breast cancer
90
0.627 (0.626, 0.628)
0.626 (0.623, 0.628)
174.1
Breast cancer [female]
89
0.625 (0.624, 0.625)
0.623 (0.622, 0.625)
174.11
Malignant neoplasm of female breast
88
0.627 (0.627, 0.628)
0.627 (0.625, 0.629)
195
Cancer, suspected or other
179
0.758 (0.758, 0.759)
0.664 (0.664, 0.665)
Supplementary Table 10: Matched linear-probe performance for all 221 INSPECT phenotypes. Values are mean AUROC (two-sided 95% t -based CI) across 20 matched probe fits. Intervals quantify fit variation, not patient-sampling uncertainty. n+ gives the positive count among 2,612 test scans, and the remaining scans are negative. Bold indicates the larger model point estimate per phenotype.
Phecode
Phenotype
nobs
Full-bank AUROC (95% CI)
Rule-restricted AUROC (95% CI)
165
Cancer within the respiratory system
10,972
0.842 (0.813, 0.870)
0.823 (0.784, 0.861)
165.1
Cancer of bronchus; lung
10,972
0.839 (0.808, 0.867)
0.821 (0.781, 0.859)
174
Breast cancer
78
0.627 (0.560, 0.686)
0.680 (0.612, 0.740)
174.1
Breast cancer [female]
78
0.625 (0.557, 0.685)
0.667 (0.602, 0.731)
174.11
Malignant neoplasm of female breast
78
0.628 (0.556, 0.690)
0.674 (0.606, 0.739)
195
Cancer, suspected or other
2,479
0.758 (0.722, 0.791)
0.775 (0.738, 0.808)
Supplementary Table 11: Complete full-bank and rule-restricted ACT performance across all 86 restriction-eligible INSPECT phenotypes. Values are held-out test AUROCs with two-sided 95% percentile CIs from 1,000 shared patient-cluster bootstrap resamples of 2,612 scans from 2,223 patients. All scans from each sampled patient received the same multiplicity. Within each resample, AUROC was recomputed for the fixed full-bank and rule-restricted probes and summarized as one value per column. Models were not refit within resamples, so intervals quantify held-out patient-sampling rather than model-fitting variability. nobs is the number of observations retained by the phenotype-specific rule set. Bold indicates the larger unrounded point estimate. Across all rows, mean AUROC was 0.741 for the full-bank reference and 0.751 for the rule-restricted probes, and rule-restricted values were higher for 55 phenotypes and lower for 31. No per-phenotype or aggregate hypothesis tests were conducted, and comparisons are descriptive.
Figure 21
Supplementary Fig. 4: Full-bank profiles distinguish direct target evidence from clinically related context. a , Bronchiectasis. b , Pneumonia. c , Coronary atherosclerosis. d , Pulmonary collapse; interstitial and compensatory emphysema. Each panel shows the unmodified five highest-ranked observations for that phenotype. Dark blue denotes direct target evidence and light blue denotes clinically related but non-defining or qualified context. Colour is separate from the strict retain and reject decisions, so the uncertain but pneumonia-related rank 1 in panel b remains light blue. All bars are blue by selection, and natural full-bank ranks were neither filtered nor reranked. Bars show mean projections across 20 fits, data are the mean ± 1 s.d. and open circles show individual fits. Titles report mean held-out test AUROC with two-sided 95% Student t CIs across fits. Scales are phenotype-specific, and intervals reflect fit-to-fit rather than patient-sampling variation.
Supplementary Fig. 5: Paired probe-observation audits for selected phenotypes with higher refined AUROC. a – d , Paired audits for cardiomegaly ( a ), osteoporosis NOS ( b ), other aneurysm ( c ) and acute pulmonary embolism or infarction ( d ). Each square panel reads from the full-bank top-five audit on the left (prior) to the refined top-five audit on the right (later). Data are the mean ± 1 s.d., and open circles show individual estimates.
Supplementary Fig. 6: Paired probe-observation audits for selected phenotypes with lower refined AUROC. a – d , Paired audits for diseases of pancreas ( a ), cancer of bronchus or lung ( b ), osteoarthrosis ( c ) and diaphragmatic hernia ( d ). Each square panel reads from the full-bank top-five audit on the left (prior) to the refined top-five audit on the right (later). Data are the mean ± 1 s.d., and open circles show individual estimates.
In this retrospective multi-institutional study, a quantitative phenotyping framework, CT-IDP (CT Image-Derived Phenotypes) was developed on the MERLIN abdominal CT benchmark (training, validation, and test sets- 15,175, 5,018, and 5,082 studies, respectively) and externally evaluated on two independent dataset: Duke-Abdomen (2,000) and AMOS (1,107). Multi-organ segmentations were generated with TotalSegmentator and used to derive over 900 organ and compartment-level descriptors spanning morphometry, attenuation, and contextual/burden findings. Sparse disease-specific logistic regression with elastic-net regularization was trained on MERLIN and externally validated under a frozen specification. Performance was compared against a DINOv3-based vision-transformer baseline using AUC and average precision (AP), supported by phenotype-stratified audits and coefficient-level inspection. Macro-AUC for CT-IDP versus the baseline was 0.897 versus 0.880 on MERLIN, 0.877 versus 0.857 on the Duke-Abdomen dataset, and 0.780 versus 0.756 on AMOS.
Lavsen Dahal, Joseph Y. Lo
1. Center for Virtual Imaging Trials, Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories · 3. Electrical and Computer Engineering, Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University · 4. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University +1
Structured phenotype extraction from radiology reports supports cohort construction, quality auditing, and clinical analytics, but practical deployment requires local inference and auditable predictions, while expert annotations remain scarce. Conventional labelers provide structured findings and assertion states but no supporting evidence, while API-hosted large language models may be unsuitable when clinical text cannot leave institutional infrastructure. We present CHESTPHENOT, a compact 0.5-3B language model that jointly extracts finding labels, three-class status (present/absent/uncertain), and verbatim supporting evidence spans. CHESTPHENOT is trained using hybrid CheXbert+72B silver supervision followed by supervised fine-tuning and lightweight GRPO refinement. Across three human-annotated gold sets spanning in-distribution, cross-taxonomy, and cross-institution evaluation, the 3B model remains below its CheXbert silver teacher in distribution but is competitive under distribution shift, significantly surpassing CheXbert on cross-institution detection (+2.0 F1). Task-specific training also enables the 3B model to match or exceed substantially larger prompted models on most detection and status comparisons. For evidence-grounded extraction, over 99% of final evidence spans are locatable in the source report, and the 3B model achieves 47.5 auditable-F1, outperforming Qwen2.5-7B one-shot prompting by 7.6 points and approaching Qwen2.5-72B. These results demonstrate that locally deployable models can provide competitive and directly auditable radiology-report extraction without relying on external inference APIs. Code and the full extraction/judge prompts will be made available at https://github.com/yukkai/ChestPheNoT.
Computed tomography (CT) is a central to three-dimensional medical imaging, yet CT-based artificial intelligence remains fragmented across task-specific models for segmentation, classification, registration, and report analysis. Here we present FlexiCT, a family of CT foundation models trained by agglomerative continual pretraining on 266,227 CT volumes from 56 publicly available datasets, forming a large-scale public resource for CT representation learning. FlexiCT uses agglomerative pretraining across three stages: two-dimensional axial pretraining, three-dimensional anatomical pretraining and report-guided semantic alignment. This training strategy supports slice-level, volume-level and vision-language analysis. Across five downstream task families (segmentation, classification, registration, vision-language understanding and clinical retrieval), FlexiCT matches or exceeds prior task-specific approaches on multiple benchmarks. Its embeddings further organize CT scans along gradients associated with various tumor stages, suggesting that CT foundation models can capture imaging features relevant to disease phenotype characterization. Project page and code are available at: https://ricklisz.github.io/flexict.github.io and https://github.com/ricklisz/FlexiCT.
Yuheng Li, Yuan Gao, Haoyu Dong +5
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA · Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA +2