arXiv:2608. 07550v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models return structured chest-radiograph findings through interfaces exposing no confidence score, so a receiving institution cannot read off how far to trust an individual judgment.
arXiv:2606. 17710v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language models report strong chest radiograph accuracy, and this is increasingly read as evidence that they use the image.
arXiv:2606. 15910v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: A vision-language model can answer a question about a chest radiograph or a pathology slide fluently and confidently while barely using the image, relying instead on language priors.
arXiv:2607. 25589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical-imaging AI benchmarks combine datasets, DICOM rendering, prompts, provider APIs, automated labels, statistical code, manuscripts, and repository releases.
The study examines how differences in radiologists’ reporting styles—such as terminology, shorthand, formatting, and detail—affect the evaluation of AI-generated chest X‑ray reports. By quantifying the sensitivity of common metrics to these variations, the authors show that changes in reference reports can shift model rankings. They introduce a taxonomy of reporting variations and a rewriting method, ReRef, that preserves clinical meaning while altering style, and release a validated dataset of paired reference reports to aid future research.
The study evaluates the robustness of medical vision‑language models for tuberculosis screening on chest X‑rays by testing them across multiple datasets, prompts, and evaluation settings. Three specialized models (BioMedCLIP, CheXficient, MedSigLIP) and a general OpenCLIP model were audited on 12,200 images, producing 244,000 model–image–prompt scores. Results show that no model consistently outperforms others across all cohorts and reliability criteria, with prompt changes and control group composition significantly affecting AUROC, and that high training‑set performance does not reliably transfer to external cohorts.
arXiv:2609.22302v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical vision-language models can propose how urgently a skin lesion should be reviewed, but the local service retains authority to accept or replace...
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
arXiv:2609.27607v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its pre...
arXiv:2608. 16709v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A radiologist reading a model's output faces two problems.
arXiv:2608. 14399v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Patients increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which doctor to see, making these systems AI infomediaries: algorithms that intermediate one person's choice among other people and thereby decide, silently and at scale, which physicians become visible.
arXiv:2609.01470v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems are increasingly used to draft radiology reports, reliably evaluating their clinical quality remains a critical challenge. Large language...
The study evaluates counterfactual bias in ten open‑source large language models (LLMs) for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. By creating paired clinical vignettes that differ only in demographic or socioeconomic variables, the authors measure shifts in acuity assignment, finding that counterfactual sensitivity varies widely across model families and sizes. A fine‑tuned Qwen2.5‑7B model exhibited the lowest sensitivity, while larger or medical‑domain models sometimes showed greater shifts, highlighting the need for fairness assessment before clinical deployment.