Back

Adapting Biomedical Foundation Models for Predicting Outcomes of Anti Seizure Medications

Pham, D. K.; Mehta, D.; Jiang, Y.; Thom, D.; Chang, R. S.-k.; Foster, E.; Fazio, T.; Holper, S.; Verspoor, K.; Liu, J.; Nhu, D.; Barnard, S.; O'Brien, T.; Chen, Z.; French, J.; Kwan, P.; Ge, Z.

2025-08-11 neurology
10.1101/2025.08.07.25333198 medRxiv
Show abstract

Epilepsy affects over 50 million people worldwide, with anti-seizure medications (ASMs) as the primary treatment for seizure control. However, ASM selection remains a "trial and error" process due to the lack of reliable predictors of effectiveness and tolerability. While machine learning approaches have been explored, existing models are limited to predicting outcomes only for ASMs encountered during training and have not leveraged recent biomedical foundation models for this task. This work investigates ASM outcome prediction using only patient MRI scans and reports. Specifically, we leverage biomedical vision-language foundation models and introduce a novel contextualized instruction-tuning framework that integrates expert-built knowledge trees of MRI entities to enhance their performance. Additionally, by training only on the four most commonly prescribed ASMs, our framework enables generalization to predicting outcomes and effectiveness for unseen ASMs not present during training. We evaluate our instruction-tuning framework on two retrospective epilepsy patient datasets, achieving an average AUC of 71.39 and 63.03 in predicting outcomes for four primary ASMs and three completely unseen ASMs, respectively. Our approach improves the AUC by 5.53 and 3.51 compared to standard report-based instruction tuning for seen and unseen ASMs, respectively. Our code, MRI knowledge tree, prompting templates, and TREE-TUNE generated instruction-answer tuning dataset are available at the link.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.