TL;DR
This study evaluates how different input representation choices affect the performance of generative medical event models trained on MIMIC-IV, highlighting the impact of tokenization, encoding, and remapping strategies.
Contribution
It systematically assesses the influence of various representation decisions on downstream prediction accuracy within a fixed training budget.
Findings
Fused code-value tokenization improves mortality and length-of-stay prediction AUROCs.
Event order encoding and admission-relative RoPE match or outperform time tokens while reducing sequence length.
CLIF remapping maintains performance and yields a smaller, interpretable token set for multi-site use.
Abstract
Every prediction from a generative medical event model is bounded by how clinical events are tokenized, yet input representation is rarely isolated from other system and architectural choices. We evaluate how representation decisions affect downstream prediction after a shared one-epoch pretraining budget. We train 28 matched transformers on MIMIC-IV and evaluate them on 30 clinical outcomes in three experiments: (1) quantization granularity, reference-range anchoring, and code-value fusion; (2) value encoding (hard bins, soft discretization, code-normalized xVal) crossed with temporal encoding (event order, time tokens, admission-relative RoPE); and (3) native MIMIC laboratory/vital codes versus the Common Longitudinal ICU Format (CLIF)-remapped laboratory/vital codes with compression-preserving perturbation arms. In Experiment 1, fused code-value tokenization improves mortality AUROC…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
