arXiv:2607. 26886v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When asked to describe a medical image that was never attached, frontier vision-language models do not abstain: they confabulate a diagnosis.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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: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.
arXiv:2608. 16709v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A radiologist reading a model's output faces two problems.
arXiv:2610.17989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A medical vision-language model may analyze a given CT scan and correctly detect both kidneys in view. Continuing this conversation, if a user provid...
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.
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.