Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Intervention-Aware Clinical World Model for Post-Op Outcome Forecasting in Cardiology

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that evolving a 3D latent anatomical state through irregular post-procedure events forecasts atrial fibrillation recurrence at AUROC 0.756, outperforming matched-input sequence baselines.

desk verdict A thoughtfully assembled world-model paper with informative ablations, but the headline 0.756 AUROC may partly reflect label leakage from events recorded after early recurrences; the main claim needs re-analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13518 v1 pith:QJUWY4YR submitted 2026-08-13 cs.LG cs.CV

Yunsung Chung , Yingshuo Liu , Abboud F. Hassan , Han Feng , Mary M. Maleckar , Nassir Marrouche , Jihun Hamm This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords clinicalworldmodelatrialfibrillationcatheterablationlatentstatedynamicsanytimeriskpredictionLGE-MRIevent-conditionedforecastingrecurrence
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 argues that post-operative recovery is not a one-step mapping from a baseline scan to a final outcome, but an irregular trajectory of clinical events that should continuously update risk. It builds a model that encodes the pre-ablation MRI into a 3D latent anatomical state, then evolves that state through medication changes, cardioversions, repeat procedures, and ECG context, and finally predicts 451-day atrial fibrillation recurrence. On the DECAAF-II cohort, the model reports AUROC 0.756 and AUPRC 0.777 for recurrence prediction, an improvement of 0.103 AUROC over a matched-input LSTM baseline. It also predicts follow-up scar extent to a mean absolute error of 2.971 percentage points without receiving follow-up MRI intensities at inference. If these results hold, the model would support dynamic, anytime risk updating during the 90-day blanking period rather than relying on a single baseline prediction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the event-conditioned latent clinical world model: a 3D spatial latent state $z_0 = E_\theta(x_0)$ initialized from the pre-ablation MRI, updated by a residual 3D CNN $f_\phi$ and a context-dependent drift MLP $g_\phi$ at each irregular event token. A horizon token sets the query time $t_T$, and the training objective includes a latent matching loss $\lambda_z \| \hat{z}_T - z_{\text{post}} \|_2^2$ that pushes the predicted terminal latent toward the follow-up MRI latent, providing training-only structural supervision. This machinery lets the model produce anytime risk estimates and retrospective input edits while never requiring the follow-up MRI at inference.

What would settle it

Re-run the internal 5-fold cross-validation with the latent matching loss applied only to patients whose follow-up MRI was acquired within a few days of the queried horizon, and compare AUROC with the reported 0.756; a large drop would indicate the gain depends on temporally misaligned supervision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an event-conditioned latent state, rather than simply more input features, drives the improvement in post-ablation recurrence forecasting. The model represents each patient's atrial anatomy as a 3D spatial latent vector obtained from a frozen VAE, and updates it stepwise through tokens encoding ablation geometry, static covariates, elapsed time, and peri-event ECGFounder embeddings. The terminal token sets the query horizon, allowing the same trained model to output risk at different times by changing only that token. Reported internal cross-validation on 91 complete-record patients yields AUROC 0.756 and AUPRC 0.777, and ablations show that removing the latent matching loss or the event sequence produces the largest performance drops, indicating that both the structural supervision and the event-driven state evolution are load-bearing.

Load-bearing premise

The training loss forces the predicted latent at the query horizon to match the follow-up MRI latent, but the model never conditions on the actual follow-up scan time, so the target may come from a different time point than the queried horizon, which could distort the learned dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clinicians could query recurrence risk at any chosen horizon using only records available by that time, enabling dynamic updates as blanking-period events accrue.
  • The model's ability to forecast scar extent without follow-up MRI at inference could reduce the need for routine follow-up imaging in risk stratification.
  • The learned latent state supports retrospective 'what-if' editing of blanking-period records, allowing clinicians to compare alternative event scenarios for a patient.
  • The same event-conditioned latent architecture could transfer to other interventions where irregular post-procedure events plausibly affect long-term outcomes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not in the paper, is to condition the latent matching loss on the actual follow-up scan time; the current training target $z_{\text{post}}$ may come from a scan acquired at a different time than the queried horizon, and testing this alignment directly could reveal whether the reported gains are robust.
  • The horizon-token formulation effectively turns the model into an anytime risk updater; one could extend it to continuous-time queries by interpolating the terminal token's time embedding, a change the authors do not explore.
  • The input-editing sensitivity results are framed as associational probes, but they hint at a potential planning tool: if the latent dynamics are trustworthy, one could search over event sequences to identify interventions that most reduce predicted recurrence risk, though causal validation would be required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an intervention-aware clinical world model that represents a post-ablation patient as a 3D latent anatomical state, updates that state through time-ordered blanking-period events (medication, cardioversion, repeat procedures), and uses a terminal horizon token to produce recurrence risk and scar-extent forecasts at different query times. The model is evaluated on DECAAF-II with internal 5-fold cross-validation on N=91 complete-record patients and on an auxiliary N=258 cohort without ablation geometry. The central empirical claims are an AUROC of 0.756 and AUPRC of 0.777 for 451-day recurrence prediction, a scar-extent MAE of 2.971 percentage points without follow-up MRI at inference, and a 0.103 AUROC gain over a matched-input LSTM that the authors attribute to the learned state evolution rather than to input access.

Significance. If the forecasting claims survive a leak-free re-evaluation, the paper would be a useful contribution to clinical risk updating: it models the post-ablation blanking period as an irregular event sequence, couples imaging and procedural geometry with ECG embeddings, and provides explicit multi-horizon queries. The paper has notable strengths: the follow-up MRI latent is used only as training supervision, the input-edit analysis is explicitly labeled as associational rather than causal, the limitations section is candid about cohort size and internal validation, and ablations separate the contributions of events, ECG, ablation map, and latent matching. However, the current evaluation has a temporal overlap between the input window and the outcome window, and this concern is directly supported by the manuscript's own Fig. 3. The latent-matching objective also has a temporal-alignment ambiguity with respect to the forecast horizon. Both issues bear on the central claim that the model forecasts recurrence rather than detecting its early aftermath, so the significance of the result is currently conditional on a revised evaluation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 3, Table 2] The evaluation protocol has a temporal overlap between input and outcome windows. Section 3 states that clinical events are censored at day 90, and Fig. 3 defines early recurrence as recurrence by day 90 (n=32). For these 32 patients, blanking-period records after the recurrence date (medication changes, cardioversion, repeat procedures) are consequences of the outcome, not predictors available before it. The reported AUROC 0.756 and the 0.103 improvement over the matched-input LSTM in Table 2 may therefore reflect detection of the aftermath of an already-occurred recurrence rather than forecasting of future recurrence. The Section 4.2 conclusion that 'state evolution, not input access alone, matters' is not established by the current numbers. Please re-run the evaluation under a leak-free protocol: either exclude patients whose recurrence precedes the query horizon, or define recurrence as occurring after the 90-day blanking period, and report the resulting AUROC and AUPRC for the model and for the matched baselines.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The latent-matching objective is not aligned with the variable forecast horizon. Eq. (5) minimizes the squared error between the predicted terminal latent z_T and the follow-up latent z_post, while Section 3 states that T is the forecast horizon, not the follow-up scan time. If the follow-up scan is acquired at a fixed clinical time and the model is queried at horizons ranging from 7 to 210 days, the loss supervises the state at time t_T with a latent from a different time point. This is load-bearing because Table 4 shows that removing the latent matching term reduces AUROC by 0.132 and raises the standard deviation to 0.200. Please state the distribution of follow-up scan times, condition the matching term on the actual scan time, or verify that the reported results are robust to this misalignment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The ablation 'w/o terminal token' is not fully specified: because Eq. (1) already includes the horizon time (t_T - t_abl)/180 in every event token, it is unclear whether the ablation removes only the appended terminal token or also removes horizon information from the event tokens. Please clarify what is actually removed.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The elapsed-time scaling tau = 30 days and the ECG pooling window of 7 days are introduced without a sensitivity analysis. Please add a sentence justifying these constants or report a sensitivity check, since the model's dynamic behavior depends on the time scaling.
  3. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'OOF Brier score 0.201' is not defined. Please clarify that it is an out-of-fold Brier score and report the folds and seeds over which it is averaged.
  4. [Table 2] Table 2 would be easier to interpret if the query horizon used for the main recurrence prediction were stated explicitly (e.g., day 90), because the anytime analysis in Fig. 3 shows that the model's separation depends on the horizon.
  5. [Fig. 4] The text describes the input-edit analysis as testing 'the model's ability to compare alternative blanking-period scenarios.' Since the edits are explicitly associational probes, consider rewording this to avoid any implication that the model computes treatment counterfactuals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the recurrence and scar labels are external, the follow-up MRI is training-only supervision, and the load-bearing comparisons are against matched-input baselines.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The recurrence label y and scar extent b are external clinical and imaging ground truths (Section 3, 'Outcome heads and training objective'), and the model never receives either at inference: 'Inference excludes follow-up MRI; inputs are pre-ablation MRI, the ablation heatmap, static covariates, the event prefix, and available pre-event ECG embeddings.' The follow-up latent zpost = E_theta(xpost) enters only through the training loss in Eq. (5), so the latent matching term is an auxiliary representation-learning objective, not a fitted prediction renamed as a result. The VAE encoder is pretrained on a disjoint 732-patient cohort, and ECGFounder embeddings come from an external model [12], so no load-bearing result rests on a self-citation. The only self-citations (SOFA [7], CRAFT [6]) appear in related work and are not used to justify the reported AUROC/AUPRC or scar MAE. The headline comparison to matched-input LSTM (Table 2) uses the same allowed inputs, so the reported 0.103 AUROC gain is an empirical result rather than a consequence of definition. Section 4.3 explicitly acknowledges that 'all results are internal to DECAAF-II' and that external validation is needed; that is an honest scope limitation, not a circular step. The reader's noted temporal overlap between the 90-day event window and early recurrences is a potential label-leakage or validation concern, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to the input by construction, so it is outside the circularity definition used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim depends on several hand-set hyperparameters and domain assumptions. The most fragile is the temporal alignment between the forecast horizon t_T and the follow-up MRI latent target z_post, which the paper states are not the same time but does not reconcile. The model also relies on the completeness of blanking-period records, the accuracy of manual EAM-to-MRI mapping, and the assumption that the outcome label does not overlap with the input events.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights lambda_z, lambda_cls, lambda_bur = not reported
    Balancing latent matching, classification, and scar regression in Eq. (5); chosen by hand or via validation, values not disclosed.
  • Elapsed-time scaling tau = 30 days
    Hand-set constant in Eq. (3) that scales time gaps in the latent drift.
  • Event-time normalization constants (90, 180) = 90 days, 180 days
    Fixed denominators in Eq. (1) for normalized event time and queried horizon.
  • ECG pooling window = 7 days before event
    Chosen to balance temporal relevance against data sparsity; not ablated.
  • Blanking-period censor at day 90 = 90 days
    Events are censored at day 90 in the sequence; reflects the clinical blanking period.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The pretrained VAE latent space provides a stable and informative representation of atrial anatomy and fibrosis across registration and patient cohorts.
    Frozen encoder E_theta pretrained on 732 patients is assumed to generalize to the 91-patient evaluation cohort (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Manual EAM-to-MRI mapping is sufficiently accurate for the ablation heatmap used as a conditioning signal.
    Acknowledged as a potential error source in Section 4.3 but load-bearing for the ablation map input.
  • ad hoc to paper The latent matching target z_post is comparable to the predicted state at the terminal horizon t_T even though t_T is the forecast horizon, not the follow-up scan time.
    Eq. (5) matches \hat z_T to z_post without conditioning on the follow-up scan time; this temporal alignment is unjustified and is the paper's weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption Blanking-period events and ECG recordings are observed without systematic missingness related to the outcome.
    Missing ECG is zero-filled and unrecorded events are not imputed (Section 3); if missingness is outcome-dependent, predictions may be biased.
  • domain assumption The clinical endpoint 'recurrence within 451 days' is valid and does not overlap with the blanking-period events used as inputs.
    The paper does not define whether cardioversion or repeat procedures count as recurrence; if they do, the input and label overlap.
invented entities (2)
  • 3D spatial latent state z with event-conditioned updates
    purpose: Structured representation of atrial anatomy and recovery trajectory; used for recurrence and scar prediction.
    Internal model construct, not directly measurable; supervised via latent matching to follow-up MRI encodings during training.
  • Horizon token
    purpose: Query mechanism to produce risk estimates at arbitrary time horizons by changing the terminal token time.
    A modeling construct; not a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intervention-Aware Clinical World Model for Post-Op Outcome Forecasting in Cardiology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJUWY4YR

@misc{pith2026260813518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intervention-Aware Clinical World Model for Post-Op Outcome Forecasting in Cardiology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJUWY4YR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13518}
}
read the original abstract

Many clinical prediction models treat post-intervention outcomes as a one-step mapping from baseline measurements to a future endpoint. However, recovery after a procedure often unfolds as an irregular trajectory: clinical observations, medication changes, repeat interventions, and physiological measurements are recorded asynchronously and can change risk assessment over time. We propose an intervention-aware clinical world model that represents each patient with a structured latent state and evolves it through time-ordered post-intervention events. The model first encodes baseline imaging into a 3D spatial latent state. It then updates this state using procedural context, static covariates, elapsed time, and peri-event physiological embeddings. Follow-up imaging provides training-only supervision through a latent forecasting objective. We apply the framework to atrial fibrillation ablation. During the 90-day recovery window, irregular post-procedure records provide clinically meaningful evidence for long-term recurrence risk. In repeated internal cross-validation on DECAAF-II, our model achieves AUROC 0.756 and AUPRC 0.777 for recurrence prediction. It also achieves a scar-extent MAE of 2.971 percentage points without requiring follow-up MRI intensities at inference. The learned state supports recurrence-risk queries at different horizons and retrospective input editing of blanking-period records.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Clinical timeline: Irregular interventions during the 90-day blanking period necessitate dynamic risk updating rather than a single-shot baseline prediction. We study atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Pre-ablation LGE-MRI captures atrial fibrosis and anatomy. During the 90-day clinical “blanking period,” med￾ication changes, electrical cardioversion, and occasional repeat procedures are recorded at irregular times … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed intervention-aware clinical world model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Anytime risk trajectories. Mean±SD for early recurrence (≤90d, n=32), late recurrence (>90d, n=14), and no recurrence (n=45). D: observed-day; F: no-new￾event horizons. Because complete multimodal records with usable ablation geometry are scarce, we use N = 258 additional patients to test whether the common-input rollout signal extends beyond the N = 91 cohort. Without an ablation map, our variant obtains AUROC/AUPR… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Input-editing sensitivity. Left: patient-wise ∆p = pbase − pedit after prede￾fined edits. Right: cohort distribution of ∆p. Edits are associational probes, not causal treatment effects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    BMC Medical Imaging21(1), 45 (2021)

    Atta-Fosu, T., LaBarbera, M., Ghose, S., Schoenhagen, P., Saliba, W., Tchou, P.J., Lindsay, B.D., Desai, M.Y., Kwon, D., Chung, M.K., et al.: A new machine learning approach for predicting likelihood of recurrence following ablation for atrial fibrillation from ct. BMC Medical Imaging21(1), 45 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08471 (2024)

    Bardes, A., Garrido, Q., Ponce, J., Chen, X., Rabbat, M., LeCun, Y., Assran, M., Ballas, N.: Revisiting feature prediction for learning visual representations from video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08471 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    In: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning (2024)

    Bruce, J., Dennis, M.D., Edwards, A., Parker-Holder, J., Shi, Y., Hughes, E., Lai, M., Mavalankar, A., Steigerwald, R., Apps, C., et al.: Genie: Generative interactive environments. In: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15083 (2024)

    Burchi, M., Timofte, R.: Mudreamer: Learning predictive world models without reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15083 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Ep Europace20(1), e1–e160 (2018)

    Calkins,H.,Hindricks,G.,Cappato,R.,Kim,Y.H.,Saad,E.B.,Aguinaga,L.,Akar, J.G.,Badhwar,V.,Brugada,J.,Camm,J.,etal.:2017hrs/ehra/ecas/aphrs/solaece expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Ep Europace20(1), e1–e160 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    CRAFT: Clinical Reward-Aligned Finetuning for Medical Image Synthesis

    Chung, Y., Darzi, A.E., Khoury, C.E., Feng, H., Marrouche, N., Hamm, J.: Craft: Clinical reward-aligned finetuning for medical image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12650 (2026)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Chung, Y., Lim, C., Bidaoui, G., Massad, C., Marrouche, N., Hamm, J.: Sofa: Deep learning framework for simulating and optimizing atrial fibrillation ablation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 500–509. Springer (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08029 (2025)

    Ding, T., Zou, Y., Chen, C., Shah, M., Tian, Y.: Clarity: Medical world model for guiding treatment decisions by modeling context-aware disease trajectories in latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08029 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Nature pp

    Hafner, D., Pasukonis, J., Ba, J., Lillicrap, T.: Mastering diverse control tasks through world models. Nature pp. 1–7 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Jiang, H., Sun, Z., Jia, N., Li, M., Sun, Y., Luo, S., Song, S., Huang, G.: Cardiac copilot: Automatic probe guidance for echocardiography with world model. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 190–199. Springer (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    In: Challenge on Left Atrial and Scar Quantification and Segmentation, pp

    Lefebvre, A.L., Yamamoto, C.A., Shade, J.K., Bradley, R.P., Yu, R.A., Ali, R.L., Popescu, D.M., Prakosa, A., Kholmovski, E.G., Trayanova, N.A.: Lassnet: a four steps deep neural network for left atrial segmentation and scar quantification. In: Challenge on Left Atrial and Scar...

    2022

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04133 (2024)

    Li, J., Aguirre, A., Moura, J., Liu, C., Zhong, L., Sun, C., Clifford, G., West- over, B., Hong, S.: An electrocardiogram foundation model built on over 10 mil- lion recordings with external evaluation across multiple domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04133 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Medical image analysis76, 102303 (2022)

    Li, L., Zimmer, V.A., Schnabel, J.A., Zhuang, X.: Atrialjsqnet: a new framework for joint segmentation and quantification of left atrium and scars incorporating spatial and shape information. Medical image analysis76, 102303 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Jama327(23), 2296–2305 (2022) 10 Y

    Marrouche, N.F., Wazni, O., McGann, C., Greene, T., Dean, J.M., Dagher, L., Kholmovski, E., Mansour, M., Marchlinski, F., Wilber, D., et al.: Effect of mri- guided fibrosis ablation vs conventional catheter ablation on atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with persistent a...

    2022

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03569 (2026)

    Mu, L., Huang, Z., Gu, Y., Qin, S., Zhang, S., Zhang, X.: Ehrworld: A patient- centric medical world model for long-horizon clinical trajectories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03569 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    Frontiers in Physiology12, 674106 (2021)

    Muffoletto, M., Qureshi, A., Zeidan, A., Muizniece, L., Fu, X., Zhao, J., Roy, A., Bates, P.A., Aslanidi, O.: Toward patient-specific prediction of ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation using deep learning. Frontiers in Physiology12, 674106 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Frontiers in Physiology12, 733139 (2021)

    Muizniece, L., Bertagnoli, A., Qureshi, A., Zeidan, A., Roy, A., Muffoletto, M., Aslanidi, O.: Reinforcement learning to improve image-guidance of ablation ther- apy for atrial fibrillation. Frontiers in Physiology12, 733139 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Frontiers in Physiology14, 1054401 (2023)

    Ogbomo-Harmitt, S., Muffoletto, M., Zeidan, A., Qureshi, A., King, A.P., Aslanidi, O.: Exploring interpretability in deep learning prediction of successful ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation. Frontiers in Physiology14, 1054401 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16333 (2025)

    Qazi, M.A., Nadeem, M., Yaqub, M.: Beyond generative ai: World models for clinical prediction, counterfactuals, and planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16333 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology34(5), 1164–1174 (2023)

    Razeghi,O.,Kapoor,R.,Alhusseini,M.I.,Fazal,M.,Tang,S.,Roney,C.H.,Rogers, A.J., Lee, A., Wang, P.J., Clopton, P., et al.: Atrial fibrillation ablation outcome prediction with a machine learning fusion framework incorporating cardiac com- puted tomography. Journal of cardiovascu...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology15(2), e010253 (2022)

    Roney, C.H., Sim, I., Yu, J., Beach, M., Mehta, A., Alonso Solis-Lemus, J., Kota- dia, I., Whitaker, J., Corrado, C., Razeghi, O., et al.: Predicting atrial fibrillation recurrence by combining population data and virtual cohorts of patient-specific left atrial models. Circula...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Frontiers in physiology8, 68 (2017)

    Varela, M., Bisbal, F., Zacur, E., Berruezo, A., Aslanidi, O.V., Mont, L., Lamata, P.: Novel computational analysis of left atrial anatomy improves prediction of atrial fibrillation recurrence after ablation. Frontiers in physiology8, 68 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02327 (2025)

    Yang, Y., Wang, Z.Y., Liu, Q., Sun, S., Wang, K., Chellappa, R., Zhou, Z., Yuille, A., Zhu, L., Zhang, Y.D., et al.: Medical world model: Generative simulation of tumor evolution for treatment planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02327 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Yue, Y., Wang, Y., Jiang, H., Liu, P., Song, S., Huang, G.: Echoworld: Learning motion-aware world models for echocardiography probe guidance. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 25993–26003 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Yue, Y., Wang, Y., Tao, C., Liu, P., Song, S., Huang, G.: Chexworld: Exploring image world modeling for radiograph representation learning. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 20778–20788 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09177 (2025)

    Zhou,X.,Li,C.,Wang,S.,Li,Y.,Tan,T.,Zheng,H.,Wang,S.:Generativeartificial intelligence in medical imaging: Foundations, progress, and clinical translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09177 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.