Decoupling Disease, Covariates, and Individual Variability: A Unified Disentanglement Framework for Medical Image Classification
Organizations: Department of Radiology & Faculty of Medical Imaging Technology, Ruijin Hospital, College of Health Science and Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China · Clinical Neuroscience Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China · School of Data Science, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China · Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China · Department of Radiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan 250031, China · Department of Clinical Psychology, School of Medical Psychology, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, Shaanxi, China
Abstract
Accurately isolating disease-related features from confounding covariates (e.g., age, gender, site) and individual variations remains a fundamental challenge in medical image classification. Traditional regression-based approaches may ignore non-linear relations between image features and true covariates. To overcome this issue, we present a generalized Medical Imaging Disentanglement Learning (MedIDL) framework. MedIDL maps image features into three mutually orthogonal latent spaces through specialized disentanglement heads: a disease classification head guided by a supervised loss, a covariate-alignment head constrained by cross-subject similarity matching, and a Gaussian head absorbing individual variations. We evaluated our framework across 7 datasets encompassing diverse imaging modalities. MedIDL outperforms state-of-the-art supervised and self-supervised classification methods in accuracy across all datasets. Association analyses demonstrate that MedIDL successfully isolates target-specific latent representations. Gradient-based interpretability mappings localize pathognomonic patterns aligning with established clinical literature.
Figures & tables
| fMRI DTI ADHD SCZ Presbycusis PPMI SCZ Method Accuracy a AUC Accuracy AUC Accuracy OvR-AUC Accuracy AUC Accuracy AUC BrainGNN 62.22 3.87 63.04 4.42 64.86 3.57 64.48 2.73 83.09 4.41 84.02 4.51 67.54 3.85 69.02 4.17 68.61 3.26 69.22 3.40 NEGAT 62.08 2.94 62.95 3.35 63.33 4.56 64.09 3.91 82.79 3.85 82.95 3.36 69.31 3.52 70.53 3.92 68.25 3.82 68.72 3.91 GraphCL 62.86 4.71 62.21 4.27 65.31 4.72 65.19 4.40 83.45 4.49 82.50 3.92 70.65 4.58 72.36 4.20 68.29 3.41 68.88 3.62 JOAO 61.92 3.72 62.12 3.84 64.92 5.11 64.80 4.63 83.15 3.77 82.69 4.43 70.28 3.59 71.92 3.47 68.37 4.10 69.30 3.86 LaGraph 63.88 2.68 63.92 2.63 65.25 3.83 64.46 4.30 83.85 4.02 83.19 3.46 71.58 3.72 72.20 3.91 69.24 3.69 70.11 4.03 AGCL 63.25 4.18 62.63 4.29 67.25 4.18 65.35 3.64 84.15 4.17 83.55 3.86 72.48 4.25 72.85 3.74 69.92 3.88 70.16 4.05 GATE 62.25 3.84 62.71 4.03 66.28 3.71 66.05 4.12 83.97 3.47 83.27 2.49 72.18 3.62 72.55 4.10 68.33 3.92 69.81 3.60 BrainGCL 62.05 3.59 61.52 3.70 65.27 2.97 64.31 3.59 82.85 2.98 83.06 4.14 72.11 4.13 72.46 3.86 68.25 4.05 69.03 3.72 DMG 62.57 2.95 62.08 3.51 67.14 3.95 68.52 4.41 84.08 3.19 83.95 4.39 72.65 3.50 73.07 4.03 70.09 4.14 71.58 3.95 Ours 65.24 3.17 b 66.03 4.05 70.02 4.06 71.05 4.57 86.22 3.36 87.05 5.04 74.46 3.52 74.91 4.10 73.42 4.06 74.08 4.02 |
| 3D MRI 2D X-ray ADNI Lung Method Accuracy a AUC Accuracy AUC v-CNN 80.53 4.15 81.14 3.58 82.35 2.30 83.05 1.96 ResNet 81.32 3.72 80.88 4.05 82.95 2.35 83.52 2.06 ViT 81.59 3.90 82.22 3.74 83.48 2.02 84.15 1.65 GF-Net 83.07 4.16 83.25 3.10 85.05 1.59 85.68 2.15 V-Mamba 82.29 3.90 84.02 4.07 85.28 1.94 85.75 2.23 DiffMed-v2 84.46 4.18 84.55 3.29 86.26 2.06 86.81 1.45 SimCLR 83.88 2.95 84.09 3.34 84.49 1.45 84.50 1.59 ADIOS 83.58 3.52 83.86 3.75 85.15 2.29 85.42 1.88 SGLA-Net 82.09 3.85 83.11 3.79 84.30 1.92 84.85 2.01 Ours 85.71 3.52 b 86.48 4.83 87.60 3.42 87.91 2.48 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset & Modality | Class | Sites | Subjects | Gender (F/M) | Age ( ) | Scanner Hardware | Acquisition Parameters |
| ADHD-200 ( fMRI ) | ADHD HC | 4 | 275 205 | 79/196 105/100 | 11.5 2.8 12.1 3.2 | Siemens/Philips 3T | TR = 2000/2500 ms, TE = 15–30 ms, FA = 75 ∘ /90 ∘ , voxel size 3 mm 3 |
| SCZ ( fMRI ) | SCZ HC | 3 | 137 190 | 62/75 92/98 | 24.8 7.5 24.9 8.2 | 3.0T Siemens Magnetom Trio Tim scanner | TR = 2 s, TE = 30 ms, flip angle = 90 ∘ , FOV = 220 220 mm 2 |
| Presbycusis ( fMRI ) | Presbycusis N-PTA HC | 1 | 130 154 112 | 55/75 70/84 48/64 | 63.2 3.3 63.6 4.6 63.1 3.2 | 3.0T Philips Achieva MR scanner | TR = 2 s, TE = 35 ms, FOV = 240 240 mm 2 , resolution = 3.75 3.75 mm 2 , 35 slices, thickness = 4 mm, 240 vols |
| PPMI ( DTI ) | PD HC | 15 | 152 41 | 103/49 28/13 | 61.3 9.1 59.5 10.8 | 3.0T Siemens Tim Trio scanner | TR/TE = 900/88 ms, FA = 90 ∘ , 72 slices, = 1000 s/mm 2 , 64 diffusion dirs, voxel size = 2 2 2 mm 3 , Cardiac-triggered |
| SCZ ( DTI ) | SCZ HC | 3 | 137 190 | 62/75 92/98 | 24.8 7.5 24.9 8.2 | 3.0T Siemens Magnetom Trio Tim scanner | = 1000 s/mm 2 , 32 dirs, resolution = 2 2 2 mm 3 |
| ADNI ( sMRI ) | MCI HC | 4 | 201 238 | 101/100 125/113 | 76.5 7.0 73.7 8.0 | Multi-site 1.5T/3T | T1-weighted MPRAGE, isotropic 1 mm 3 voxels |