Learning Patient-Specific Disease Dynamics with Latent Flow Matching for Longitudinal Imaging Generation
Hao Chen, Rui Yin, Yifan Chen, Qi Chen, Chao Li

TL;DR
This paper introduces $ abla$-LFM, a novel framework that models disease progression as a velocity field using flow matching, creating interpretable, patient-specific latent trajectories aligned with disease severity, validated on MRI data.
Contribution
It proposes a new method combining flow matching with patient-specific latent alignment to better model and interpret disease dynamics in longitudinal imaging.
Findings
Strong empirical performance on MRI benchmarks
Latent trajectories align with disease severity indicators
Provides interpretable visualization of disease progression
Abstract
Understanding disease progression is a central clinical challenge with direct implications for early diagnosis and personalized treatment. While recent generative approaches have attempted to model progression, key mismatches remain: disease dynamics are inherently continuous and monotonic, yet latent representations are often scattered, lacking semantic structure, and diffusion-based models disrupt continuity with random denoising process. In this work, we propose to treat the disease dynamic as a velocity field and leverage Flow Matching (FM) to align the temporal evolution of patient data. Unlike prior methods, it captures the intrinsic dynamic of disease, making the progression more interpretable. However, a key challenge remains: in latent space, Auto-Encoders (AEs) do not guarantee alignment across patients or correlation with clinical-severity indicators (e.g., age and disease…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- The paper has a clear formulation that couples patient-specific latent alignment (ArcRank) with temporal flow matching. - The method shows consistent empirical results across three longitudinal AD MRI benchmarks. - The paper has good ablation and visualization.
- Temporal sampling [0, T] still effectively assumes roughly uniform progression between scans; the paper acknowledges uneven progression but does not truly model accelerations/plateaus. - Evaluation is confined to AD-style neurodegeneration datasets; claims about general utility (tumor, faster diseases, multi-organ) are speculative. It strongly weakens the conclusion. - ArcRank depends on SVD-based decomposition per latent, which could be brittle or expensive and the paper does not compare to
While different elements (TADM, BrLP, SADM etc., which are cited here) used in this work have been previously proposed separately, one of the contributions of this paper is to combine these several ideas into a common framework. This makes this work somewhat novel. The main novelty of the work is the introduction of the matching loss ArkRank loss. This loss enforces patient-specific trajectory alignment and temporal ordering. The trajectory alignment is achieved using angle matching of features
There is one main novel idea in the paper, i.e. the introduction of the ArcRank loss. The rest of the ideas are incrementally novel and have been conceptually proposed before and also applied to MRI images. The ArcRank loss involves an SVD may be expensive to evaluate. An intrinsic weakness in the definition of the ArcRank loss is the reliance on two weights \lambda_{arc} and \lambda_{rank}. The authors don't mention how these weights are imposed. Aligning the directions (first term) and ma
1. I find this topic computationally interesting, scientifically important, and clinically relevant. 2. The proposed method is well motivated and easy to follow. 3. Very good visual presentation. a. The figures are beautifully made, with carefully chosen colors (Figure 1), clear illustration of ideas (Figure 1), and proper colormaps (Figures 2 & 4). The only less nice-looking figure (Figure 3) can be easily improved by removing top and right borders and enlarging the labels and tick lab
1. A few comments on comparisons to existing work. a. The authors mentioned that the proposed method “treats the disease dynamic as a velocity field” when modeling disease progression. As a result, I believe it is expected to compare against ImageFlowNet [1], since the design philosophy is similar. The authors can stay assured that I recognize the novelty of this submission, since there are sufficient distinctions, namely (1) flow matching instead of neural differential equations and (2) th
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning in Healthcare · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
