ArticleArXiv2025
Controllable Sequence Editing for Biological and Clinical Trajectories.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conditional generation models for longitudinal sequences can generate new or modified trajectories given a conditioning input. While effective at generating entire sequences, these models typically lack control over the timing and scope of the edits. Most existing approaches either operate on univariate sequences or assume that the condition affects all variables and time steps. However, many scientific and clinical applications require more precise interventions, where a condition takes effect only after a specific time and influences only a subset of variables. We introduce Clef, a controllable sequence editing model for conditional generation of immediate and delayed effects in multivariate longitudinal sequences. Clef learns temporal concepts that encode how and when a condition alters future sequence evolution. These concepts allow Clef to apply targeted edits to the affected time steps and variables while preserving the rest of the sequence. We evaluate Clef on 7 datasets spanning cellular reprogramming and patient health trajectories, comparing against 9 state-of-the-art baselines. Clef improves immediate sequence editing accuracy by up to 36.01% (MAE). Unlike prior models, Clef enables one-step conditional generation at arbitrary future times, outperforming them in delayed sequence editing by up to 65.71% (MAE). We test Clef under counterfactual inference assumptions and show up to 63.19% (MAE) improvement on zero-shot conditional generation of counterfactual trajectories. In a case study of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, Clef identifies clinical interventions that generate realistic counterfactual trajectories shifted toward healthier outcomes.
Identifiers
39975421PMC11838772What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.