C2LUE: Clinically Aligned Patient-Level Ultrasound Diagnosis via Evidence-Aware Multi-Instance Learning
Authors: Qin-Yi Zhang, Linying Cao, De-Xing Huang, Haichuan Lin, Yi Yang, Manzhi Wang, Xiao-Hu Zhou, Chen Chen, +2 more
Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Patient-level ultrasound diagnosis demands not only high predictive accuracy but also clinically aligned mitigation of asymmetric diagnostic risks. While Multi-Instance Learning (MIL) effectively models routine multi-view exams, standard aggregators often dilute heterogeneous diagnostic cues and optimize solely for global accuracy. This frequently yields undesirable sensitivity-specificity trade-offs. To bridge this gap, we propose C2LUE, a novel MIL framework coupling evidence aware aggregation with risk-aligned regularization. To preserve evidence heterogeneity and prevent unimodal attention collapse, C2LUE employs a multi-query cross-attention mechanism built upon a LoRA-adapted DINOv3 backbone. Multiple latent queries explicitly extract and disentangle diverse morphological patterns from the ultrasound sequence. Furthermore, to improve clinical risk alignment, we introduce a dynamic trade-off regularization objective that penalizes sensitivity-specificity imbalance during training. Rather than leaving the clinical trade-off entirely to post-hoc threshold adjustment, this objective encourages the learned score distribution toward a more balanced operating region. Extensive evaluations on patient-level, biopsy-proven thyroid and breast ultrasound datasets demonstrate that C2LUE consistently outperforms prior alternatives. By uniting strong discrimination with a balanced error profile, C2LUE provides a promising solution for real-world ultrasound screening and diagnosis.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of C 2 LUE. (a) The evidence-aware pipeline extracts heterogeneous features via multi-query cross-attention on a LoRA-adapted DINOv3 backbone. (b) The clinical objective dynamically penalizes sensitivity-specificity imbalance to align the decision boundary with clinical trade-off preferences.
Dataset
Split
Images
Patients
Benign
Malignant
Bag size
ThyroidXL
Train
9,541
3,354
2,477
877
2.85/3 [1, 10]
Val
2,094
739
386
353
2.83/3 [1, 8]
BUS-BRA
Train
1,323
744
505
239
1.78/2 [1, 2]
Test
552
320
217
103
1.73/2 [1, 2]
Table 1: Patient-level dataset statistics. Bag size is reported as mean/median [min, max].
Method
ThyroidXL
BUS-BRA
AUC
AUPRC
Se
Sp
AUC
AUPRC
Se
Sp
MeanP
0.912 ± 0.004
0.905 ± 0.006
0.745 ± 0.005
0.909 ± 0.007
0.929 ± 0.005
0.868 ± 0.004
0.718 ± 0.006
0.912 ± 0.008
MaxP
0.916 ± 0.009
0.876 ± 0.007
0.618 ± 0.005
0.941 ± 0.004
0.927 ± 0.006
0.865 ± 0.004
0.670 ± 0.005
0.923 ± 0.007
WMV
0.918 ± 0.005
0.874 ± 0.006
0.686 ± 0.004
0.940 ± 0.003
0.925 ± 0.007
0.869 ± 0.005
0.718 ± 0.006
0.922 ± 0.004
ABMIL
0.922 ± 0.006
0.913 ± 0.004
0.785 ± 0.008
0.902 ± 0.005
0.922 ± 0.004
0.871 ± 0.007
0.689 ± 0.003
0.908 ± 0.006
GatedMIL
0.924 ± 0.004
0.911 ± 0.005
0.708 ± 0.007
0.922 ± 0.006
0.917 ± 0.005
0.870 ± 0.006
0.748 ± 0.004
0.899 ± 0.008
Table 2: Main results (mean ± std, 5 seeds). Δ shows the gain of our method vs . the second-best method. Gray value shows the decrease compared to the best method.
Figure 2: Decision Boundary Alignment. Left: sensitivity–specificity trade-off. Right: representative single-run confusion matrices; parentheses denote changes relative to the baseline.
Figure 3: Multi-query evidence visualization. Top: query-specific attention of representative queries across instances. Bottom: complementary diagnostic regions highlighted by different queries.
Setting
ThyroidXL
BUS-BRA
AUC
AUPRC
Se
Sp
AUC
AUPRC
Se
Sp
Evidence Aggregation Strategy
Q=1
0.916 ± 0.005
0.902 ± 0.004
0.853 ± 0.006
0.852 ± 0.007
0.887 ± 0.004
0.808 ± 0.005
0.825 ± 0.006
0.820 ± 0.004
Q=8
0.914 ± 0.006
0.889 ± 0.005
0.853 ± 0.004
0.855 ± 0.003
0.888 ± 0.007
0.821 ± 0.006
0.824 ± 0.005
0.834 ± 0.008
Q=4 ✓
0.932 ± 0.003
0.919 ± 0.004
0.874 ± 0.004
0.876 ± 0.003
0.936 ± 0.002
0.880 ± 0.005
0.876 ± 0.005
0.879 ± 0.003
Δ +0.016
+0.017
+0.021
+0.021
Δ +0.048
+0.059
+0.051
+0.045
Table 3: Ablation study on patient-level performance (mean ± std, 5 seeds). Δ shows the gain of ours relative to the second-best setting within each ablation block. Gray value shows the decrease compared to the best setting.
Figure 4: View-availability analysis on (a) ThyroidXL and (b) BUS-BRA. Patient-level performance improves as more ultrasound views are available. Error bars denote standard deviations over five random seeds.
Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), TU Munich, Germany · Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML), Munich, Germany · Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, China +1