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.
By Mateusz Koz{\l}owski
arXiv:2608. 16709v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A radiologist reading a model's output faces two problems.
By Vignesh Nagarajan, Sriram Venkatapathy
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.
By Pengyang Yu, Yiou Wang, Zhongping Dong, Sahraoui Dhelim, Chun-Mei Feng, M. Tahar Kechadi
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.
By Mushir Akhtar, M. Tanveer, Mohd. Arshad
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.
By Reza Khanmohammadi, Kundan Thind, Mohammad M. Ghassemi
arXiv:2509. 19671v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Public datasets of Chest X-Rays (CXRs) have long been a popular benchmark for developing machine learning (ML) computer vision models in healthcare.
By Andrew Wang, Jiashuo Zhang, Michael Oberst
Current evaluation protocols for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in Radiology Report Generation (RRG) rely on report-level metrics that measure lexical overlap or aggregate clinical correctness. However, such metrics do not test whether individual diagnostic statements stem from the actual pathological evidence visible in the image.
arXiv:2608. 00147v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language pretraining learns rich medical image representations from radiology reports, but previous model variants commonly operate within a single shared embedding space, so concept-level structure and interpretability must be recovered post hoc, limiting model transparency and, hence, clinical utility.
By Fabian Drexel, Marlene Fritzsche, Era Stambollxhiu, Miriam Kumpf, Lena Schmitzer, Lea Schumann, Jannik Kahmann, Friedrich Puttkammer, Johannes Moll, Jannik L\"ubberstedt, Zeineb Ben Chaaben, Anirudh Narayanan, Cosmin I. Bercea, Sebastian Ziegelmayer, Marcus R. Makowski, Daniel Rueckert, Lisa C. Adams, Keno K. Bressem
arXiv:2607. 05880v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Imaging demand is growing faster than the radiology workforce can expand, and reporting backlogs cannot be resolved through training and recruitment alone.
By Suneeta Mall, Vladimir Nekrasov, Ashnil Kumar, Sajith Karunasena, Aiden Nibali, Alix Bird, Mateo Diaz Shine, Jarrel Seah
arXiv:2607. 01973v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly applied in medical tasks such as pathology description, report generation, and visual question answering.
By Sofiane Ouaari, Kevin Vorwalder, Nico Pfeifer
arXiv:2606. 10066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language models (VLMs) are evaluated on public benchmarks whose images and question-answer pairs have been freely downloadable for years, yet reported accuracy assumes these examples were absent from pretraining.
By Bruce Changlong Xu, Lan Wu, Alexander Ryu
Med-AR introduces two autoregressive vision‑language models, Med‑AR‑8B and Med‑AR‑2B, pretrained on structured radiology reports, abnormality‑focused text, and region annotations to address long‑tailed chest X‑ray classification. The models outperform existing contrastive, self‑supervised, and supervised encoders—including Med‑CLIP, CheXFound, EVA‑Base, ARK, and BioViL‑T—across PadChest, MIMIC‑CXR, and CheXpert, achieving higher mean AUROC and AUPRC for head, medium, and tail findings and lower excess area under the risk‑coverage curve. Med‑AR also demonstrates improved selective‑prediction performance, with Med‑AR‑8B raising tail‑label mean AUPRC on MIMIC‑CXR from 0.1033 to 0.1441 and Med‑AR‑2B delivering the strongest discrimination on PadChest.
By Janhavi Prabhu, Sahil, Akshay V, Shivam Shukla, Manoj Tadepalli, Preetham Putha