ViSTA: A Simple Bridge Extends Visual Alignment to Clinical Time-Series Understanding in Multimodal LLMs
Authors: Junyi Gao, Yu Shi, Pingzhao Hu, Ewen M Harrison
Organizations: Centre for Medical Informatics, University of Edinburgh · Health Data Research UK · Biostatistics Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto · Department of Biochemistry, Western University
Clinical prediction models estimate risk from patient measurements, while large language models support medical text understanding and question answering. Yet their language capabilities do not ensure accurate prediction from structured, high-dimensional clinical time series. Improving this ability would connect risk estimation with flexible questions about a patient's evolving condition. We introduce ViSTA, a compact adapter that incorporates irregular numerical measurements into a pretrained vision-language model's chart representations. It learns corrections to visual tokens while leaving all pretrained parameters unchanged. On MIMIC-IV, ViSTA has the highest mean scores among the compared adaptations on all four metrics for acute kidney injury and mortality prediction across models with 2-9 billion parameters. With 0.516 million trainable parameters, the 2-billion-parameter model reaches an area under the ROC curve of 0.7376 for acute kidney injury, compared with GPT-5.6 Sol's 0.7380 with text input and high reasoning effort. Training for temporal question answering yields 69.27% accuracy at 4 billion parameters with over 90% fewer trainable parameters than low-rank adaptation using charts or numerical text, at a 2.82-4.88 percentage-point accuracy gap. ViSTA extends pretrained language models to numerical prediction and temporal questions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Numerical correction of an established visual interface. Direct numerical interfaces learn how to present a new continuous representation to a language model. Chart inputs use its pretrained visual pathway. ViSTA adds numerical corrections to original visual tokens at their existing positions, preserving token order and positional indices. The language model and its output head remain frozen.
Figure 2: ViSTA architecture. An event encoder pools irregular numerical observations into latent summaries. Queries derived from visual grid positions and variable identity read these summaries and produce residuals with the same shape as the original visual tokens. The residual output projection starts at zero. Answer supervision propagates through the frozen language model to the event encoder and bridge.
Method
Update
Trainable params (M)
Unadapted text
None
0
Unadapted plots
None
0
Chart LoRA
LoRA
6.193
Text LoRA
LoRA
7.032
ChatTS
LoRA
6.692
MLLM4TS
Layer norm
0.884
Table 1: Comparison methods and adaptation size. Update describes adaptation within the language decoder. Parameters are trainable counts at 4B. ViSTA uses 0.516M/0.582M/0.780M at 2B/4B/9B.
AKI
Mortality
QA
Method / input
AUROC
AP
AUROC
AP
Acc. (%)
Proprietary references
GPT 5.6 Sol-high / text
0.7380 ±0.0293
0.4212 ±0.0246
0.7515 ±0.0231
0.2935 ±0.0254
-
GPT 5.6 Sol-high / plots
0.7283 ±0.0292
0.4126 ±0.0330
0.7221 ±0.0291
0.2733 ±0.0285
-
GPT 5.6 Luna-high / text
0.7422 ±0.0297
0.4382 ±0.0312
0.6870 ±0.0306
0.2780 ±0.0324
-
GPT 5.6 Luna-high / plots
0.6689 ±0.0284
0.3358 ±0.0342
0.6684 ±0.0306
0.2605 ±0.0368
-
Table 2: Prediction and QA performance after outcome training. Values are mean ± patient-bootstrap SD; bold and underline mark the best and second-best Qwen means per scale and metric. Adapted Qwen models use outcome supervision only. GPT models receive no task-specific training, and their QA scores appear in Table 3 .
GPT reference / input
QA without task-specific training (%)
GPT 5.6 Sol-high / text
90.51 ±0.70
GPT 5.6 Sol-high / plots
84.24 ±0.79
GPT 5.6 Luna-high / text
80.30 ±0.93
GPT 5.6 Luna-high / plots
74.05 ±1.13
Method
2B
4B
9B
Acc. (%)
Δ (pp)
Acc. (%)
Δ (pp)
Acc. (%)
Δ (pp)
Table 3: Large QA gains with a compact frozen interface. Accuracy (%) is mean ± patient-bootstrap SD; Δ is the gain over the unadapted chart model in percentage points. GPT models receive no task-specific training. Qwen adaptations are trained on QA; bold and underline mark the best and second-best Qwen means per scale.
Figure 3: Prediction gains persist as the backbone grows. Adapted models use outcome supervision only; the right panel evaluates QA without QA training. Error bars show patient-bootstrap SD. Both encodings have identical parameter counts at each scale.
Figure 4: Supervised QA gains across most categories. At 4B, ViSTA -Separate is compared with the category-wise best of ChatTS, MLLM4TS, ITFormer, and OpenTSLM. Error bars show paired patient-bootstrap SD with baseline selection repeated per replicate. Absolute scores appear in Appendix G .
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Answer construction
TG: Event localization
Locate the start of the first consecutive pair of observed threshold breaches within one of four quarters of a time window.
ASR: Cross-variable retrieval
Find an extremum of one variable and retrieve the nearest observation of another; resolve time ties using the earlier reading.
TPR: Segmented trends
Split ordered observations into five nearly equal blocks, compare medians using a stated tolerance, and merge adjacent repeated directions.
MA: Missingness counting
Count a variable’s observed and absent entries on the union of recorded timestamps in a specified window.
TSS: Numerical summaries
Select the correct first, last, minimum, and maximum values for two variables from summaries with numerical distractors.
CVR: Ordering of changes
Compare the first specified directional changes of two variables, including simultaneous and absent-change cases.
Appendix
Table 4: Temporal QA definitions. Each question specifies its observation window, thresholds, and tolerances.
Setting
Value
Clinical variables C ; slots per variable
11; 12
Total internal slots K
132
Visual tokens per chart; total N
192; 2,112
Numerical optimizer
AdamW, learning rate 10−4
Weight decay; gradient norm ceiling
0.01; 1.0
Numerical precision
BF16 backbone
Appendix
Table 5: Selected ViSTA interface and training configuration. Settings are selected on the validation set.
Prediction Δ AUROC
QA after prediction (pp)
Supervised QA Δ (pp)
Scale
AKI
Mortality
vs. plots
vs. text
ViSTA -Joint
ViSTA -Separate
2B
+0.2079
+0.1754
+3.00
+0.42
+32.78
+33.28
4B
+0.1190
+0.1478
+6.23
+2.33
+32.77
+33.77
9B
+0.2298
+0.1916
+5.91
+4.00
+25.46
+24.23
Appendix
Table 6: Prediction and QA gains over the unadapted models. Prediction AUROC changes use the unadapted chart baseline as the reference. QA after prediction training is compared with both unadapted input baselines. These columns use ViSTA -Joint; supervised QA gains use their respective encodings and are relative to the unadapted chart baseline.
Scale
AKI AP
Mortality AP
QA after prediction (pp)
Supervised QA (pp)
2B
+0.0099
+0.0344
+0.09
-0.50
4B
+0.0218
+0.0259
+0.09
-1.00
9B
+0.0213
+0.0375
-0.73
+1.23
Appendix
Table 7: ViSTA -Joint minus ViSTA -Separate encoding. Positive entries favor ViSTA -Joint. Prediction and supervised QA use separately trained adapters. The first QA column evaluates the prediction-trained adapter without further training.
AKI
Mortality
Transfer QA
Method / input
AUROC
AP
AUROC
AP
Acc. (%)
ViSTA : full V+R
0.7440
0.4650
0.7350
0.2651
41.73
Inference-time input interventions
Visual only: V
0.6250
0.2795
0.5872
0.1493
35.50
Residual only: R
0.5418
0.2216
0.5690
0.1332
29.95
Training ablations
Appendix
Table 8: Input interventions and design ablations at 4B. The full model is ViSTA -Joint from Table 2 . Here R=s⊙Δ denotes the scaled numerical residual. Visual-only and residual-only inputs are evaluated at inference without retraining. The last two rows remove the indicated component during training. QA is evaluated without QA supervision; higher is better for every metric.
Category
Best baseline (%)
ViSTA -Joint (%)
ViSTA -Separate (%)
Δ (pp)
ASR: Cross-variable retrieval
41.50±3.29
52.00±3.49
53.00±3.47
11.50±4.47
CVR: Ordering of changes
68.50±3.25
63.00±3.42
62.50±3.42
−6.00±2.67
IID: Next intervention
83.50±2.44
78.00±2.96
80.50±2.87
−3.00±2.27
IR: Intervention response
59.50±3.40
64.50±3.39
62.00±3.40
2.50±4.30
MA: Missingness counting
59.00±3.19
54.00±3.52
63.00±3.41
4.00±4.30
MED: Monitoring rules
75.50±3.07
76.00±3.04
75.50±3.07
0.00±0.00
Appendix
Table 9: Supervised QA gains over the best baseline in each category at 4B. All methods are trained on QA. The reference is the maximum of ChatTS, MLLM4TS, ITFormer, and OpenTSLM in each category. Δ is ViSTA -Separate minus this reference, in percentage points. Values include patient-bootstrap SD.
Category
Test n
Majority letter
Majority (%)
Random (%)
Event localization
200
A
27.00
25.00
Cross-variable retrieval
200
A
28.50
25.00
Segmented trends
200
A
21.00
25.00
Missingness counting
200
A
29.50
25.00
Numerical summaries
200
D
25.50
25.00
Ordering of changes
200
C
30.50
25.00
Appendix
Table 10: QA baselines without patient information. Majority selects each category’s most frequent training answer letter and reports test accuracy. Random is the exact expectation of uniform four-option guessing. All accuracies are percentages.
AKI
Mortality
Method
AUROC
AP
AUROC
AP
LSTM
0.7793±0.0178
0.5244±0.0354
0.7780±0.0212
0.3357±0.0473
GRU
0.7761±0.0183
0.5170±0.0341
0.7728±0.0233
0.3248±0.0474
Transformer
0.7378±0.0183
0.4400±0.0340
0.7288±0.0256
0.2997±0.0465
ConCare
0.7946±0.0175
0.5367±0.0331
0.7881±0.0218
0.3505±0.0484
VITA
0.8006±0.0170
0.5429±0.0354
0.7969±0.0211
0.3569±0.0485
Appendix
Table 11: Specialized clinical prediction references. Reported AUROC/AP ± SD. These systems have no QA evaluation in this study.
AKI
Mortality
Scale
Unadapted plots
ViSTA -Joint
ViSTA -Separate
Unadapted plots
ViSTA -Joint
ViSTA -Separate
ECE ↓
2B
0.1965
0.0468
0.0444
0.4962
0.0328
0.0338
4B
0.0378
0.0437
0.0614
0.3860
0.0383
0.0373
9B
0.2418
0.0820
0.0511
0.7261
0.0666
0.0284
Brier score ↓
Appendix
Table 12: Numerical adaptation improves prediction probability quality. Probabilities are evaluated without recalibration; lower is better. Bold marks the minimum for each model size, outcome, and metric. Table 13 reports both unadapted input baselines, including patient-bootstrap SD.
AKI
Mortality
Scale
Method
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
2B
Unadapted text
0.3462 ±0.0133
0.2895 ±0.0021
0.5665 ±0.0096
0.4214 ±0.0044
Unadapted plots
0.1965 ±0.0130
0.2026 ±0.0030
0.4962 ±0.0097
0.3482 ±0.0035
4B
Unadapted text
0.0861 ±0.0124
0.1780 ±0.0059
0.1300 ±0.0095
0.1127 ±0.0048
Unadapted plots
0.0378 ±0.0111
0.1590 ±0.0080
0.3860 ±0.0100
0.2537 ±0.0040
9B
Unadapted text
0.4843 ±0.0145
0.2990 ±0.0033
0.4502 ±0.0092
0.4586 ±0.0088
Appendix
Table 13: Calibration of unadapted models with text and chart inputs. Values are mean ± patient-bootstrap SD. ECE uses ten equal-width probability bins. Bold marks the smallest mean within each scale and metric.
Longitudinal clinical notes contain rich evidence of how patients evolve over time, but converting this signal into training supervision for clinical prediction remains challenging. We extend Foresight Learning to clinical prediction by converting time-ordered MIMIC-III notes into examples consisting of past patient context, a natural-language question about a possible future event, and a label resolved from later documentation. This process yields 6,900 prediction examples from 702 admissions across medications, procedures, organ support, microbiology, and mortality. A small LoRA adapter trained on these examples improves over the prompted base model, reducing expected calibration error from 0.1269 to 0.0398 and Brier score from 0.199 to 0.145, while slightly outperforming GPT-5 point estimates on held-out questions. The approach enables reusable clinical prediction supervision from longitudinal notes without hand-engineered structured features or endpoint-specific classifiers.
The reasoning gap between large and compact vision-language models (VLMs) limits the deployment of medical AI on portable clinical devices. Compact VLMs of 2--4B parameters can run on resource-constrained hardware but lack the multi-step reasoning capacity needed for interpretable clinical decision support. Existing knowledge distillation methods transfer answers without the reasoning process behind them. Medical visual question answering (VQA) serves as a testbed for this problem, as it requires models to integrate visual evidence with clinical knowledge through structured reasoning chains. We introduce LiteMedCoT-VL, a pipeline that transfers chain-of-thought reasoning from a 235B teacher model to 2B student models through LoRA-based fine-tuning on explanation-enriched training data. All inference is conducted without image captions by default, simulating the clinical scenario in which a physician interprets a medical image directly without an accompanying radiology report. On the PMC-VQA benchmark, LiteMedCoT-VL achieves 64.9% accuracy, exceeding the zero-shot Qwen3-VL-4B baseline of 53.9% by 11.0 percentage points and outperforming all published baselines. This result indicates that a 2B model with reasoning distillation can match or exceed models with twice the parameters. Visual grounding analysis shows that the model relies on image content rather than exploiting textual priors. Our code is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LiteMedCoT-VL.
Runze Ma, Shunbo Jia, Haonan Lyu +2
School of Information Technology Monash University Malaysia · Faculty of Innovation Engineering Macau University of Science and Technology · Department of Bioelectronics Faculty of Biomedical Engineering Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology +1
Medical time series (MedTS) underpin many clinical classification tasks, yet existing methods usually represent them only as numerical sequences and underuse the morphology that is explicit in waveform inspection. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vision-Informed Retrieval (ViRe), which uses a frozen VLM-derived waveform representation as a morphology-aware Query to guide retrieval from raw numerical MedTS features. Specifically, a Vision Query is extracted using pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs) to obtain morphology-aware priors from waveform plots. A tailored attention-based cross-modal retrieval mechanism then uses the Vision Query to select morphology-relevant temporal and channel evidence from the numerical representation. ViRe demonstrates strong effectiveness against ten established baselines, yielding an overall 6.42% relative improvement over the previous state of the art across six public benchmarks. Code, training scripts, and reproducibility materials are publicly available in the GitHub Repository: https://github.com/Levi-Ackman/ViRe.
Guoqi Yu, Juncheng Wang, Shujun Wang
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Sports Technology The Hong Kong Polytechnic University