Integrating textual clinical data and neuroimaging for enhanced diagnosis of neurological disorders


Abstract

Accurate diagnosis of neurological disorders is challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of patient data, which includes neuroimaging and unstructured clinical narratives. The integration of multimodal information, particularly high-dimensional neuroimaging and textual clinical records, has emerged as a pivotal area of research. Conventional methods often process these modalities independently or utilize basic fusion techniques, resulting in semantic misalignment, loss of modality-specific information, and reduced robustness when data is incomplete. To overcome these challenges, this study introduces a multimodal fusion framework centered on the Modal-Interlaced Fusion Network (MIF-Net) and supported by Semantic Cross-Modality Regularization (SCMR). MIF-Net leverages graph-based message passing, cross-attentional encoding, and gated hierarchical fusion to model inter-modal dependencies, ensuring deep semantic alignment while retaining individual modality attributes. SCMR enhances semantic consistency and robustness through adaptive confidence weighting, projection invariance, entropy-based uncertainty regulation, and semi-supervised consistency learning. Experimental results on benchmark datasets for neurological disorder diagnosis demonstrate marked improvements in diagnostic accuracy, modality robustness, and interpretability. This framework offers a scalable solution for integrating structured and unstructured medical data, contributing to advancements in medical image analysis and neuroinformatics.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].