Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 25 references

VMRA-MaR: An Asymmetry-Aware Temporal Framework for Longitudinal Breast Cancer Risk Prediction

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read VMRA-MaR claims that a recurrent Vision Mamba RNN combined with bilateral asymmetry tracking improves longitudinal breast cancer risk prediction over the LoMaR transformer baseline, particularly at 4-5 year follow-up horizons and in…

desk verdict A sensible architecture paper whose headline gains rest on an under-described evaluation protocol and statistics that do not yet support the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17412 v1 pith:HXN5L5OT submitted 2025-06-20 eess.IV cs.CV

Zijun Sun , Solveig Thrun , Michael Kampffmeyer This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords breastcancerriskpredictionlongitudinalmammogramsVisionMambaRNNstate-spacemodelbilateralasymmetryCSAW-CCdatasettemporalmodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that longitudinal breast cancer risk prediction improves when temporal modeling is recurrent and asymmetry-aware rather than transformer-based with positional embeddings. It proposes VMRA-MaR, which processes five yearly screening mammograms through a Vision Mamba RNN (VMRNN) with LSTM-like memory and an asymmetry module that tracks persistent left-right differences. The central empirical claim is that this combination outperforms the previous state-of-the-art LoMaR at the four- and five-year horizons, reaching a C-index of 0.82 with ROCAUC of 0.84, and shows a clear advantage in high-density breasts, with a one-year ROCAUC of 0.97 versus 0.88 for LoMaR. A sympathetic reader would care because longer-horizon and dense-breast predictions are exactly the clinically challenging cases where existing risk models are weakest.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the VMRNN block: a recurrent cell that updates a hidden state and cell state at each yearly screening visit using a gating signal from a Vision State Space (Mamba-style) module, with downsampling, upsampling, and a reconstruction layer for multi-scale representation. It is paired with a Spatial Asymmetry Detector (SAD) that aligns left and right views and finds the maximum local feature difference, and a Longitudinal Asymmetry Tracker (LAT) that follows that maximum's location across visits, upweighting the asymmetry score when the abnormality persists. The Additive Hazard Layer combines the temporal embedding with the asymmetry score into monotone, non-negative cumulative risk estimates for years one through five.

What would settle it

Re-run both VMRA-MaR and LoMaR under the same protocol with every exam dated after the cancer diagnosis excluded and all images from one woman kept in only one split, then compare the four- and five-year C-index and the high-density one-year ROCAUC; if the margins shrink toward the borderline p-value of 0.061, the claimed advantage is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that longitudinal breast cancer risk prediction improves when temporal modeling is recurrent and asymmetry-aware rather than transformer-based with positional embeddings. The proposed VMRA-MaR processes five yearly screening visits, each with four mammographic views, through a frozen Mirai image encoder; the VMRNN block carries an LSTM-like cell state gated by a Vision State Space module, and the asymmetry module upweights regions whose contralateral difference persists across visits. As reported, this yields a C-index of 0.82 and ROCAUC of 0.84 at years four and five, beating LoMaR, and a one-year ROCAUC of 0.97 in the high-density subgroup. The paper also reports that averaging asymmetry scores over time outperforms concatenating them, and that Grad-CAM saliency maps place more weight near expert-annotated lesions when both temporal and asymmetry cues are present.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical gains over LoMaR stand on the validity of LoMaR's preprocessing and train/test split, which the paper delegates to reference [10] and does not describe; if exam dates after diagnosis are not filtered or the same woman's images appear in both train and test, the reported C-index and ROCAUC improvements could be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-horizon risk prediction improves: the model reaches a C-index of 0.82 with ROCAUC of 0.84 at both year 4 and year 5, where the LoMaR baseline scores lower.
  • High-density breasts show the largest gain: the one-year ROCAUC of 0.97 versus 0.88 for LoMaR indicates better risk separation in the subgroup where mammography is most difficult.
  • Recurrent temporal encoding contributes independently of asymmetry: the VMRNN-only variant also improves some horizons, such as a five-year ROCAUC of 0.86 versus 0.83 for LoMaR.
  • Asymmetry tracking helps early horizons: VMRA-MaR reaches one-year ROCAUC of 0.94 and two-year ROCAUC of 0.88, compared with 0.92 and 0.83 for LoMaR.
  • Averaging asymmetry scores across time is the better fusion strategy, suggesting that persistent rather than one-time asymmetry carries the predictive signal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If these gains survive on external screening cohorts, screening programs could use the model to tailor intervals by breast density rather than age alone, since the high-density one-year margin is the strongest reported result.
  • Editorial inference: The LAT's persistent-abnormality threshold (40% of the window size) is a free parameter; a natural extension is to test whether varying it changes the high-density advantage, which the paper does not report.
  • Editorial inference: Because the asymmetry module operates on bilateral feature maps, the same SAD plus LAT design could transfer to other paired-organ imaging settings, but the paper only validates it on mammograms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes VMRA-MaR, a recurrent framework for 1–5 year breast cancer risk prediction from longitudinal mammograms. It combines a VMRNN (Vision Mamba RNN) temporal encoder with a Spatial Asymmetry Detector and a Longitudinal Asymmetry Tracker, and feeds the fused representation into an additive hazard layer. The method is evaluated on the CSAW-CC dataset and compared with OncoNet, Mirai, AsymMirai, and LoMaR, with claims of improved performance especially at 4–5 year follow-up and in high-density subgroups.

Significance. If the reported evaluation is valid, the paper would make a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates a recurrent state-space temporal model as an alternative to Transformer-based longitudinal baselines for mammography risk prediction, and it extends asymmetry analysis from single time steps to a longitudinal setting. The authors also release code and build on public datasets and pretrained weights, which aids reproducibility. However, because the central comparisons rest on an underspecified data split, internally inconsistent confidence intervals, and a borderline significance level, the significance is currently conditional on major revisions to the evaluation and reporting.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The CSAW-CC split and temporal-filtering protocol are not described in the manuscript. Section 3.1 states only that the authors 'adhere to the preprocessing protocol outlined in LoMaR [10]' and delegate the details to that reference. Since the model consumes five yearly screenings per patient, this is load-bearing: if same-patient images appear in both training and test sets, or if exams acquired after diagnosis are included in the input sequences, the reported C-index and ROCAUC gains over LoMaR would be inflated. The authors must specify the patient-level split, the exclusion of post-diagnosis exams, the matching of controls, and the exact follow-up definition, or the numerical claims cannot be interpreted.
  2. [Table 1] Many confidence intervals in Table 1 do not contain their reported point estimates; for example, LoMaR 3-year ROCAUC is 0.83 with 95% CI 0.85–0.86, 4-year is 0.82 with 0.84–0.86, and 5-year is 0.83 with 0.85–0.87, and similar inconsistencies appear in other rows. This indicates an error in confidence-interval computation or transcription. Because every comparison in the paper is expressed through these numbers, the table must be corrected before any conclusion about relative performance can be drawn. In addition, Table 2 reports subgroup ROCAUC values without any confidence intervals, which is especially problematic for the headline high-density 1-year result (0.97 vs 0.88 for LoMaR).
  3. [§3.3, Table 1] The central claim that VMRA-MaR surpasses LoMaR, particularly at 4–5 years, is not consistently supported by the reported numbers. The overall comparison shows p=0.061 (borderline), and at 5 years VMR_MaR achieves ROCAUC 0.86 (0.84–0.86), numerically higher than VMRA-MaR's 0.84 (0.82–0.86). The text in §3.3 attributes long-horizon gains to combining VMR and Asym, which contradicts the table. The authors should report confidence intervals for the differences, specify the statistical test used for p, and provide a corrected interpretation of which module drives long-horizon performance.
  4. [§2.4 and §3.2] The training objective is described inconsistently. Section 2.4 states that the additive hazard layer is optimized 'via log-likelihood maximization on the observed screening follow-up data,' while Section 3.2 says the model is trained with a 'weighted cross-entropy loss with class weights derived from the training set distribution, following LoMaR.' These are different objectives, and the AHL in Eqs. (7)–(8) estimates cumulative risk probabilities, not necessarily a categorical cross-entropy target. The authors need to state which loss is actually minimized, how the follow-up years are converted into labels, and how class weights are applied.
  5. [§3.2] The image encoder is initialized with Mirai weights and kept frozen during training, and VMRNN blocks are initialized from pretrained VMRNN weights. For a fair comparison, the manuscript must specify whether LoMaR and the other baselines use the same pretrained encoder and the same input views and risk-factor variables; otherwise the reported gains may be attributable to the encoder initialization rather than to the proposed temporal and asymmetry modules. The ablation 'VMR_MaR' helps isolate the asymmetry module only if the encoder is identical across the compared models.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 contains multiple typos, including 'Spilt', 'ImgEmbddins', 'Embddins-5Y', and 'Aggerator'; these should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [§3.4] The text refers to 'CSAW-CCS' in the density-stratification description; this should be 'CSAW-CC'.
  3. [§2.4] The phrase 'A baseline risk, B(eR), is computed via a Linear k(eR)' appears to contain a notation or formatting error; please clarify the intended expression.
  4. [§2.3] The 40% displacement threshold in the LAT and the choice of average fusion over concatenation are described without justification or sensitivity analysis; reporting experiments across threshold values would strengthen the paper.
  5. [§3.3] The p-value of 0.061 is reported without specifying the statistical test used or whether any multiple-comparison correction was applied; this information should be added.
  6. [Figure 2] The caption states that five representative subjects are shown, then lists 'two high-, one medium-, and one low-density'; this sums to four subjects and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical architecture comparison whose load-bearing components are external priors, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its central claim from its own fitted inputs. Its strongest results—improved C-index and ROCAUC over LoMaR at 4–5 years and in high-density subgroups—are empirical benchmark comparisons on the external CSAW-CC dataset, using the preprocessing protocol of LoMaR [10], a non-overlapping prior work. The model components (VMRNN, Mirai encoder, AsymMirai-inspired asymmetry module) are all imported from external sources, not from the authors' own prior claims, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or self-citation is invoked to forbid alternatives. The 40% displacement threshold and the choice of average fusion over concatenation are model-selection decisions, not predictions defined in terms of the outcome; they are not circular. The delegation of dataset split and temporal-filtering details to reference [10], and the internally inconsistent confidence intervals in Table 1, are correctness and reproducibility risks, but they do not make the derivation circular: the numerical claims would stand or fall on the external evaluation protocol rather than on equivalence to the paper's own definitions. No step in the paper reduces, by construction, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model leans on a frozen Mirai encoder, on the assumption that left-right feature maps align well enough for asymmetry detection, on the CSAW-CC/LoMaR preprocessing protocol, and on a hand-set 40% persistence threshold. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • LAT displacement threshold = 40% of window size
    Hand-set in Section 2.3; persistent abnormality is defined by displacement below this threshold and risk is upweighted. No sensitivity analysis or validation-based selection is reported.
  • Asymmetry score fusion = average
    Section 3.3 states average fusion outperformed concatenation, but no search protocol or validation set is described.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Mirai's frozen image encoder produces features sufficient for temporal and asymmetry-based risk prediction
    The entire pipeline relies on features from a frozen Mirai encoder; if those features discard temporal or contralateral cues, the VMRNN and SAD modules cannot recover them.
  • domain assumption Left and right mammographic feature maps can be aligned by horizontal flipping for the asymmetry detector
    SAD computes local differences between left and right feature maps after flipping, assuming adequate spatial correspondence across contralateral views.
  • domain assumption The LoMaR preprocessing and split protocol for CSAW-CC is valid and leakage-free
    The paper delegates preprocessing and class distribution details to LoMaR [10] without describing the train/test split or temporal filtering of cancer cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VMRA-MaR: An Asymmetry-Aware Temporal Framework for Longitudinal Breast Cancer Risk Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXN5L5OT

@misc{pith2026250617412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VMRA-MaR: An Asymmetry-Aware Temporal Framework for Longitudinal Breast Cancer Risk Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXN5L5OT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17412}
}
read the original abstract

Breast cancer remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide and is typically detected via screening programs where healthy people are invited in regular intervals. Automated risk prediction approaches have the potential to improve this process by facilitating dynamically screening of high-risk groups. While most models focus solely on the most recent screening, there is growing interest in exploiting temporal information to capture evolving trends in breast tissue, as inspired by clinical practice. Early methods typically relied on two time steps, and although recent efforts have extended this to multiple time steps using Transformer architectures, challenges remain in fully harnessing the rich temporal dynamics inherent in longitudinal imaging data. In this work, we propose to instead leverage Vision Mamba RNN (VMRNN) with a state-space model (SSM) and LSTM-like memory mechanisms to effectively capture nuanced trends in breast tissue evolution. To further enhance our approach, we incorporate an asymmetry module that utilizes a Spatial Asymmetry Detector (SAD) and Longitudinal Asymmetry Tracker (LAT) to identify clinically relevant bilateral differences. This integrated framework demonstrates notable improvements in predicting cancer onset, especially for the more challenging high-density breast cases and achieves superior performance at extended time points (years four and five), highlighting its potential to advance early breast cancer recognition and enable more personalized screening strategies. Our code is available at https://github.com/Mortal-Suen/VMRA-MaR.git.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Network architecture of our proposed VMRNN-Asymmetry Mammogram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Grad-CAM visualizations of VMR-MaR and VMRA-MaR models for five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    In: Linguraru, M.G., Dou, Q., Feragen, A., Giannarou, S., Glocker, B., Lekadir, K., Schnabel, J.A

    Karaman, B.K., Dodelzon, K., Akar, G.B., Sabuncu, M.R.: Longitudinal mam- mogram risk prediction. In: Linguraru, M.G., Dou, Q., Feragen, A., Giannarou, S., Glocker, B., Lekadir, K., Schnabel, J.A. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2024. pp. 437–446. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 74(3), 229–263 (2024)

    Bray, F., Laversanne, M., Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., Soerjomataram, I., Je- mal, A.: Global cancer statistics 2022: Globocan estimates of incidence and mor- tality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 74(3), 229–263 (2024)

    2024

  3. [2]

    Breast Cancer Research17, 1–10 (2015)

    Brentnall, A.R., Harkness, E.F., Astley, S.M., Donnelly, L.S., Stavrinos, P., Samp- son, S., Fox, L., Sergeant, J.C., Harvie, M.N., Wilson, M., et al.: Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the tyrer-cuzick and gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective uk screening cohort. Breast Cancer Research17, 1–10 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Diagnostics14(8), 848 (2024)

    Carriero, A., Groenhoff, L., Vologina, E., Basile, P., Albera, M.: Deep learning in breast cancer imaging: State of the art and recent advancements in early 2024. Diagnostics14(8), 848 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Radiology310(3), e232780 (2024)

    Donnelly, J., Moffett, L., Barnett, A.J., Trivedi, H., Schwartz, F., Lo, J., Rudin, C.: Asymmirai: Interpretable mammography-based deep learning model for 1–5-year breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology310(3), e232780 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Breast cancer research9, 1–8 (2007)

    Evans, D.G.R., Howell, A.: Breast cancer risk-assessment models. Breast cancer research9, 1–8 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    JAMA internal medicine173(3), 220–226 (2013) 10 Z

    Gross, C.P., Long, J.B., Ross, J.S., Abu-Khalaf, M.M., Wang, R., Killelea, B.K., Gold, H.T., Chagpar, A.B., Ma, X.: The cost of breast cancer screening in the medicare population. JAMA internal medicine173(3), 220–226 (2013) 10 Z. Sun et al

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Gu, A., Dao, T.: Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00752

    arXiv 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    European Journal of Cancer44(10), 1404–1413 (2008)

    Hakama, M., Coleman, M.P., Alexe, D.M., Auvinen, A.: Cancer screening: evidence and practice in europe 2008. European Journal of Cancer44(10), 1404–1413 (2008)

    2008

  2. [9]

    Hendrycks, D., Gimpel, K.: Gaussian error linear units (gelus) (2023),https: //arxiv.org/abs/1606.08415

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    BMC medical research methodology18, 1–12 (2018)

    Katzman, J.L., Shaham, U., Cloninger, A., Bates, J., Jiang, T., Kluger, Y.: Deep- surv:personalizedtreatmentrecommendersystemusingacoxproportionalhazards deep neural network. BMC medical research methodology18, 1–12 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    In: Greenspan, H., Madabhushi, A., Mousavi, P., Salcudean, S., Duncan, J., Syeda-Mahmood, T., Taylor, R

    Lee, H., Kim, J., Park, E., Kim, M., Kim, T., Kooi, T.: Enhancing breast cancer risk prediction by incorporating prior images. In: Greenspan, H., Madabhushi, A., Mousavi, P., Salcudean, S., Duncan, J., Syeda-Mahmood, T., Taylor, R. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer A...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Radiology290(1), 52–58 (2019)

    Lehman, C.D., Yala, A., Schuster, T., Dontchos, B., Bahl, M., Swanson, K., Barzi- lay, R.: Mammographic breast density assessment using deep learning: clinical im- plementation. Radiology290(1), 52–58 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Missouri medicine111(5), 439 (2014)

    Otto, P.M., Blecher, C.B.: Controversies surrounding screening mammography. Missouri medicine111(5), 439 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Grad- cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 618–626 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Breast Cancer Research12, 1–7 (2010)

    Stone, J., Ding, J., Warren, R.M., Duffy, S.W., Hopper, J.L.: Using mammographic density to predict breast cancer risk: dense area or percentage dense area. Breast Cancer Research12, 1–7 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Strand, F.: Csaw-cc (mammography)–a dataset for ai research to improve screen- ing, diagnostics and prognostics of breast cancer (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion Workshops (CVPRW)

    Tang, Y., Dong, P., Tang, Z., Chu, X., Liang, J.: VMRNN: Integrating Vi- sion Mamba and LSTM for Efficient and Accurate Spatiotemporal Forecasting . In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion Workshops (CVPRW). pp. 5663–5673. IEEE Computer Societ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    The Lancet Oncology20(4), 504–517 (2019)

    Terry, M.B., Liao, Y., Whittemore, A.S., Leoce, N., Buchsbaum, R., Zeinomar, N., Dite, G.S., Chung, W.K., Knight, J.A., Southey, M.C., et al.: 10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study. The Lancet Oncology20(4), 504–517 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Vaswani,A.,Shazeer,N.,Parmar,N.,Uszkoreit,J.,Jones,L.,Gomez,A.N.,Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need (2023),https://arxiv.org/abs/1706. 03762

    2023

  13. [21]

    JAMA Network Open8(1), e2452821–e2452821 (2025) Asymmetry-Aware Temporal Framework for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction 11

    Wilkinson, A.N., Mainprize, J.G., Yaffe, M.J., Robinson, J., Cordeiro, E., Hong, N.J.L., Williams, P., Moideen, N., Renaud, J., Seely, J.M., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening using digital mammography in canada. JAMA Network Open8(1), e2452821–e2452821 (202...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Radiology 292(1), 60–66 (2019)

    Yala, A., Lehman, C., Schuster, T., Portnoi, T., Barzilay, R.: A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology 292(1), 60–66 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Science Translational Medicine13(578), eaba4373 (2021)

    Yala, A., Mikhael, P.G., Strand, F., Lin, G., Smith, K., Wan, Y.L., Lamb, L., Hughes, K., Lehman, C., Barzilay, R.: Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk. Science Translational Medicine13(578), eaba4373 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Radiology293(1), 38–46 (2019)

    Yala, A., Schuster, T., Miles, R., Barzilay, R., Lehman, C.: A deep learning model to triage screening mammograms: a simulation study. Radiology293(1), 38–46 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Yeoh, H.H., Liew, A., Phan, R., Strand, F., Rahmat, K., Nguyen, T.L., Hopper, J.L., Tan, M.: Radifusion: A multi-radiomics deep learning based breast cancer risk prediction model using sequential mammographic images with image attention and bilateral asymmetry refinement (2023...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.