Cross-modal triage network: a multimodal deep learning framework for severity-based triage and visual explainability in chest radiographs
Organizations: University of Guelph, College of Engineering, Collaborative Specialization in Artificial Intelligence, Guelph, Ontario, Canada · Guelph General Hospital, Department of Radiology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Purpose: Increased number of chest radiograph (CXR) scans create a triage bottleneck, queueing urgent examinations behind routine ones. Existing AI tools are predominantly unimodal binary classifiers lacking severity awareness, and multimodal systems are rarely benchmarked against expert radiologists. To this end, we developed a multimodal deep learning framework for joint severity triage, pathology detection, and native visual explanation. Approach: We propose the cross-modal triage network (CMTN), fusing a Swin Transformer V2 visual encoder with a PubMedBERT text encoder via gated cross-attention. The CMTN was trained on 34,639 image-text pairs (12,489 patients) from MIMIC-CXR-JPG, optimizing an ordinal focal loss for four-tier severity triage and binary cross-entropy for 14 pathologies. Beyond quantitative benchmarking, attention heatmaps were evaluated against a blinded expert radiologist in a two-phase clinical audit comparing model triage output to expert severity assessment (100 cases) and grading spatial-semantic concordance (116 heatmaps). Results: The CMTN achieved strong ordinal agreement with reference labels (quadratic weighted kappa [QWK] = 0.9341, 95% CI: 0.9219 to 0.9449) and macro-AUROC of 0.9970 across 14 pathologies, with 34~ms latency, outperforming the state-of-the-art BioViL multimodal baseline (QWK = 0.7679). However, the blinded Phase I clinical audit revealed substantially lower agreement with genuine radiologist judgment (QWK = 0.1399). Phase II found 54.3% of heatmaps achieved clinically acceptable spatial localization. Conclusions: The CMTN demonstrated an efficient multimodal architecture for CXR triage. The divergence between algorithmic and radiologist agreement demonstrates that benchmark performance against NLP-derived labels is insufficient, highlighting the need for radiologist-labeled ground truth before clinical deployment.
Figures & tables
| Characteristic | Training (N=7,804) | Validation (N=992) | Testing (N=1,072) |
| Female | 3,993 (51.2%) | 505 (50.9%) | 519 (48.4%) |
| Male | 3,811 (48.8%) | 487 (49.1%) | 553 (51.6%) |
| 18 to 40 years | 1,281 (16.4%) | 174 (17.5%) | 169 (15.8%) |
| 41 to 65 years | 3,361 (43.1%) | 408 (41.1%) | 462 (43.1%) |
| 65+ years | 3,162 (40.5%) | 410 (41.3%) | 441 (41.1%) |
| White | 4,981 (63.8%) | 627 (63.2%) | 678 (63.2%) |
| Hyperparameter | Relative Importance | Structural Implication |
| Unfreeze epoch | 45.0% | Early co-adaptation between modalities is critical. |
| Modality dropout | 26.0% | Regularization substantially affects modality dependence. |
| Learning rate | 16.0% | Precise gradient scaling is required for stable convergence. |
| Condition weight ( ) | 8.0% | Auxiliary pathology supervision contributes additional stability. |
| Focal gamma ( ) | 6.0% | Influences learning on minority severity categories. |
| Model Configuration | Validation QWK | Validation Macro-F1 | Validation mAUC |
| Vision-only (SwinV2) | 0.3948 | 0.4196 | 0.7151 |
| Text-only (PubMedBERT) | 0.9079 | 0.8699 | 0.9954 |
| Concatenation fusion | 0.9061 | 0.8632 | 0.9944 |
| CMTN-LR (0% Dropout) | 0.9126 | 0.8628 | 0.9940 |
| CMTN-MR (10% Dropout) [Proposed] | 0.9091 | 0.8640 | 0.9915 |
| CMTN-SR (20% Dropout) | 0.9033 | 0.8526 | 0.9929 |
| Model | QWK (95% CI) | mAUC | Macro-F1 | Accuracy |
| External State-of-the-Art Baselines | ||||
| DenseNet-121 (Vision-only) | 0.4438 (0.4148 to 0.4738) | 0.7456 | 0.4239 | 0.5568 |
| BioViL (Multimodal) | 0.7679 (0.7462 to 0.7890) | 0.9734 | 0.7341 | 0.7902 |
| Internal Ablations and Proposed Model | ||||
| Vision-only (SwinV2) | 0.4492 (0.4301 to 0.4682) | 0.7405 | 0.4190 | 0.5275 |
| Text-only (PubMedBERT) | 0.9401 (0.9280 to 0.9510) | 0.9985 | 0.9029 | 0.9275 |
| Severity Tier | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
| Routine (Tier 0) | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 |
| Mild (Tier 1) | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.92 |
| Moderate (Tier 2) | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| Urgent (Tier 3) | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.87 |
| Error Distance | Cases | Percentage |
| 0 tiers | 3,195 | 91.94% |
| 1 tier | 201 | 5.78% |
| 2 tiers | 42 | 1.21% |
| 3 tiers | 37 | 1.06% |
| Clinical Condition | AUROC |
| Edema | 0.9997 |
| Fracture | 0.9994 |
| Pleural other | 0.9993 |
| Atelectasis | 0.9991 |
| Lung opacity | 0.9990 |
| Consolidation | 0.9986 |
| Category | Subgroup | N | QWK | Macro-F1 |
| Sex | Male | 2,033 | 0.9294 | 0.8898 |
| Sex | Female | 1,230 | 0.9370 | 0.8834 |
| Age | 18 to 40 | 524 | 0.9084 | 0.8451 |
| Age | 41 to 65 | 1,412 | 0.9265 | 0.8757 |
| Age | Greater than 65 | 1,327 | 0.9351 | 0.9029 |
| Race/Ethnicity | White | 2,077 | 0.9431 | 0.8961 |
| Score | Definition | Cases | Percentage |
| 5 (Perfect) | Hotspot centered precisely on pathology | 52 | 44.8% |
| 4 (Good) | Encompasses pathology with minor spillover | 11 | 9.5% |
| 3 (Partial) | Overlaps but spatially imprecise | 9 | 7.8% |
| 2 (Poor) | Minimal overlap, focused on wrong region | 13 | 11.2% |
| 1 (Non-concordant) | Fails to localize, focuses on hardware | 31 | 26.7% |
Chest X-Ray Classification
Chest X-ray classification uses machine learning to detect and categorize diseases and findings in radiographs for screening, triage, and clinical decision support.
See all 100 papers