Jiashuo Zhang

Yifei Zhang, Jiashuo Zhang, Mojtaba Safari et al.

Low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) inherently captures both pulmonary and cardiac structures, offering a unique opportunity for joint assessment of lung and cardiovascular health. However, most existing approaches treat these domains as independent tasks, overlooking their physiological interplay and shared imaging biomarkers. We propose an Explainable Cross-Disease Reasoning Framework that enables interpretable cardiopulmonary risk assessment from a single LDCT scan. The framework introduces an agentic reasoning process that emulates clinical diagnostic thinking-first perceiving pulmonary findings, then reasoning through established medical knowledge, and finally deriving a cardiovascular judgment with explanatory rationale. It integrates three synergistic components: a pulmonary perception module that summarizes lung abnormalities, a knowledge-guided reasoning module that infers their cardiovascular implications, and a cardiac representation module that encodes structural biomarkers. Their outputs are fused to produce a holistic cardiovascular risk prediction that is both accurate and physiologically grounded. Experiments on the NLST cohort demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance for CVD screening and mortality prediction, outperforming single-disease and purely image-based baselines. Beyond quantitative gains, the framework provides human-verifiable reasoning that aligns with cardiological understanding, revealing coherent links between pulmonary abnormalities and cardiac stress mechanisms. Overall, this work establishes a unified and explainable paradigm for cardiovascular analysis from LDCT, bridging the gap between image-based prediction and mechanism-based medical interpretation.

Andrew Wang, Jiashuo Zhang, Michael Oberst

Public healthcare datasets of Chest X-Rays (CXRs) have long been a popular benchmark for developing computer vision models in healthcare. However, strong average-case performance of machine learning (ML) models on these datasets is insufficient to certify their clinical utility. In this paper, we use clinical context, as captured by prior discharge summaries, to provide a more holistic evaluation of current ``state-of-the-art'' models for the task of CXR diagnosis. Using discharge summaries recorded prior to each CXR, we derive a ``prior'' or ``pre-test'' probability of each CXR label, as a proxy for existing contextual knowledge available to clinicians when interpreting CXRs. Using this measure, we demonstrate two key findings: First, for several diagnostic labels, CXR models tend to perform best on cases where the pre-test probability is very low, and substantially worse on cases where the pre-test probability is higher. Second, we use pre-test probability to assess whether strong average-case performance reflects true diagnostic signal, rather than an ability to infer the pre-test probability as a shortcut. We find that performance drops sharply on a balanced test set where this shortcut does not exist, which may indicate that much of the apparent diagnostic power derives from inferring this clinical context. We argue that this style of analysis, using context derived from clinical notes, is a promising direction for more rigorous and fine-grained evaluation of clinical vision models.