Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Radiology Report Generation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A five-agent pipeline that divides radiology report generation into retrieval, drafting, refinement, vision, and synthesis outperforms a single medical model on standard and LLM-judged metrics.

desk verdict A plausible but thinly supported multi-agent RAG pipeline for radiology report generation; the idea is sensible, the evaluation does not yet back the headline claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09787 v1 pith:DFD2IR3D submitted 2025-05-14 cs.AI

Ziruo Yi , Ting Xiao , Mark V. Albert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords radiologyreportgenerationmulti-agentsystemsmultimodallargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedchestX-rayclinicalreasoningIUMIMIC-CXR
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that decomposing radiology report generation into five specialized agents—retrieval, drafting, refinement, visual analysis, and synthesis—produces more accurate and better-structured reports than a single multimodal model that sees only the image. The motivating problem is that current MLLM-based report generation suffers from factual inconsistency, hallucination, and weak cross-modal alignment. On the IU X-ray test set, the proposed pipeline reports large gains over the LLaVA-Med baseline in BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, and BERTScore, and it beats the baseline on four of five LLM-judged dimensions, including diagnostic accuracy. The intended significance is that clinically aligned, modular agent workflows can make automated report generation more grounded, explainable, and controllable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the five-stage decomposition with structured intermediate outputs. A CLIP-based Retrieval Agent finds top-k similar prior reports; the Draft Agent writes a preliminary report from them; the Refiner Agent distills key findings under an instruction that every sentence must be supported by the retrieved input; the Vision Agent produces an image-grounded caption; and the Synthesis Agent merges the three textual and visual streams into the final report. What carries the argument is the separation of responsibilities plus retrieval grounding: the final report is constrained to include only what the retrieved reports and the visual caption support.

What would settle it

Keep all agents and prompts the same but replace the top-k retrieved reports with random reports from the IU X-ray training set. If the automatic and LLM-judged scores stay near the reported levels, retrieval grounding is not what drives the improvement; if they fall sharply, the claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that a multi-agent workflow, where each agent plays a role in the clinical reasoning chain, beats a strong single-agent medical MLLM at radiology report generation. In the reported experiments, the framework raises BLEU from 0.0036 to 0.0466, ROUGE-1 from 0.2398 to 0.3652, ROUGE-2 from 0.0278 to 0.1292, ROUGE-L from 0.1537 to 0.2471, METEOR from 0.1437 to 0.3618, and BERTScore from 0.8617 to 0.8819. The LLM-as-a-judge evaluation shows gains in key-finding coverage, diagnostic accuracy, style alignment, and conciseness, while the single model retains a slight lead in consistency (6.94 vs. 6.74). The authors attribute the improvement to retrieval grounding, intermediate refinement, and the final synthesis that combines visual and textual evidence, and they note the small consistency drop as a limitation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Retrieval Agent actually finds relevant prior reports on the IU X-ray test set; the agent is fine-tuned on MIMIC-CXR and no retrieval-quality numbers are reported, so that usefulness is an assumption rather than a measured fact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, task decomposition plus retrieval grounding can lift both lexical and semantic report quality without fine-tuning the text LLM end-to-end.
  • The consistency shortfall reported for the multi-agent output implies that the added retrieval and refinement context can introduce redundancy, making agent-level ablations the direct next experiments.
  • Because intermediate outputs are inspectable, the architecture provides a route to interpretable generation in which a clinician could audit what the system retrieved and what it chose to include.
  • The modular design is not tied to a single backbone, so the same five-agent structure could be ported to other multimodal medical tasks that follow a stepwise diagnostic workflow.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the Draft Agent is given top-k retrieved reports from the IU X-ray training set at test time, part of the BLEU jump may reflect stylistic conformity to the reference database rather than improved visual reasoning.
  • Editorial inference: a minimal control experiment, replacing retrieved reports with randomly selected reports while keeping all other agents fixed, would isolate whether retrieval grounding is the active ingredient.
  • Editorial inference: the framework's text agents rely on a strong proprietary LLM and judge, so the reported gap may not transfer to smaller open-weight backbones; re-running the same agent roles with an open model is a testable check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multimodal multi-agent framework for radiology report generation (RRG). The pipeline consists of five specialized agents: a Retrieval Agent that selects top-k similar reports from a database using a CLIP-based cross-modal retriever; a Draft Agent that generates an initial report from the retrieved reports; a Refiner Agent that distills key findings; a Vision Agent that produces an image-grounded visual description using LLaVA-Med; and a Synthesis Agent that integrates these outputs into a final report, powered by GPT-4o. The framework is evaluated on the IU X-ray dataset against a single-agent LLaVA-Med baseline, using standard lexical metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore) and an LLM-based judge (Claude 3 Opus). The authors report substantial gains on most automatic metrics and on four of five LLM-judged quality dimensions, while noting a slight drop in the consistency dimension. They claim the multi-agent design, by aligning with stepwise clinical reasoning, improves factual accuracy, structure, and semantic coherence. The paper includes a qualitative case study and a discussion of limitations, but no code release, no ablations, and no statistical significance testing.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper would make a modest contribution: it demonstrates that a modular, retrieval-augmented multi-agent pipeline with task-specific prompts can outperform a single medical MLLM on a public RRG benchmark. The architecture is clearly described and the motivation—aligning with clinical workflow—is sensible. The paper also uses publicly available datasets and a standard baseline, which aids reproducibility in principle. However, the evidence is currently thin: only one dataset, one baseline, no error bars, no ablation study, and an LLM judge that is not calibrated against humans. The headline BLEU comparison is not verifiable as reported because the BLEU variant is unspecified. These deficiencies are fixable within the scope of the paper, but they currently prevent the central claims from being accepted at face value.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.1, Table 1] The paper reports a 'BLEU score' of 0.0466 for the proposed method and 0.0036 for LLaVA-Med, but neither the abstract, Section 4.2.1, nor Table 1 specifies which BLEU variant is used (e.g., BLEU-1 vs. BLEU-4), how references are tokenized, or which implementation was used. The baseline value 0.0036 is consistent with BLEU-4 on short radiology references, whereas 0.0466 could be a BLEU-1 score or a different preprocessing of BLEU-4. Because the headline claim rests on this comparison, the BLEU metric must be precisely defined and the same evaluation code applied to both systems. Please report BLEU-1 through BLEU-4, or at minimum specify BLEU-4 with the exact tokenization and library, and confirm the comparison is apples-to-apples.
  2. [Section 4.1] The Retrieval Agent is fine-tuned on 3,000 image–report pairs from MIMIC-CXR, yet the entire evaluation is conducted on IU X-ray. The paper provides no retrieval metrics (e.g., recall@k, precision@k, or qualitative relevance checks) on the evaluation set. Since the Draft, Refiner, and Synthesis agents all depend on the top-k retrieved reports, the claimed gains could originate from the retrieval being effective on IU X-ray, or could fail to transfer from MIMIC-CXR. To support the central claim that retrieval grounding improves generation, the paper must either demonstrate retrieval quality on IU X-ray or include an ablation that removes or perturbs the retrieval component and shows a corresponding degradation.
  3. [Section 4.2.1, Table 2] The consistency score of the proposed method (6.74) is numerically lower than the baseline (6.94), yet Section 4.2.1 concludes that the multi-agent design 'substantially improves both textual quality and semantic coherence.' The paper acknowledges this drop in Section 4.3, but the phrase 'semantic coherence' is directly counter-signaled by the consistency metric. The authors should either temper the claim, provide an explanation for why the consistency drop is acceptable, or present additional evidence (e.g., human evaluation) that the overall coherence is not worse. As written, the claim of 'semantic coherence' improvement is not supported by the data in Table 2.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.3] No error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests are reported for any of the automatic metrics, and the evaluation uses only 590 test reports with a single baseline. With such a small test set, the observed gains on ROUGE, METEOR, and BERTScore could be within run-to-run or model-call variance. Moreover, Section 4.3 explicitly states that 'future work includes a more systematic investigation, particularly through agent-level ablation,' implying that the current evidence does not isolate the contribution of each agent. Please provide repeated runs or a significance test, and ideally an ablation study that removes each agent, to support the claim that every agent plays a meaningful role.
  5. [Section 4.2.1, LLM-as-a-Judge] The LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation uses a single model (Claude 3 Opus) with no human validation, no inter-rater reliability measure, and no reported prompt template or scoring rubric details. LLM judges are known to be biased toward style and length, and without calibration against clinician ratings, the numerical scores in Table 2 are difficult to interpret. Please provide a human evaluation on a random sample (even a few dozen reports), or at minimum report the judge's prompt and show that its ratings correlate with expert judgments on a pilot set. Without this, the qualitative superiority claim is not independently verifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The model name 'LLaV A-Med' contains an erroneous space; it should appear as 'LLaVA-Med.' The same typo appears in the abstract? (The abstract only mentions 'MLLMs' and the baseline name in the body.) Please correct this globally.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.2.1] The abstract and Section 4.2.1 refer simply to 'BLEU' while the evaluation section lists several metrics; please specify the BLEU variant even in the abstract to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 4.1, Implementation Details] The retrieval parameter k is set to 5 by default, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. Since k determines the amount of context passed to the LLM agents, a brief study varying k (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 10) would help the reader assess robustness.
  4. [Section 4.2.2, Figure 2] The qualitative case study is illustrative but does not include the reference report or the LLaVA-Med baseline output for the same image; showing all three would make the comparison more convincing.
  5. [Section 4.3, Discussion] The paper mentions a related multi-agent approach [54] that also observes a consistency drop, but it does not compare directly with this prior work quantitatively. Adding a comparison against [54] on the same dataset would strengthen the positioning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pipeline's outputs are compared against external references and a separate judge, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The final report is generated by composing five agents (retrieval, draft, refiner, vision, synthesis) from the input image and retrieved reports, and the headline claim is an empirical comparison against a single-agent baseline (LLaVA-Med) on held-out IU X-ray references, evaluated with standard lexical metrics and a separate Claude 3 Opus judge. No equation defines the output in terms of the target metric, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the retrieval model is fine-tuned on a different dataset (MIMIC-CXR) rather than on the evaluation set. The only self-citation, [2] in the introduction, supports a general statement about the importance of RRG and is accompanied by an external reference [1]; it plays no role in the experimental results or in any mathematical derivation. Concerns about cross-dataset retrieval transfer, unspecified BLEU variant, and lack of error bars are correctness/experimental-design risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that retrieval from a MIMIC-CXR-trained CLIP embedding space returns clinically relevant reports for IU X-ray images, and that the LLM agents follow their grounding instructions. Neither is independently validated in the paper, and the LLM judge is not calibrated against human radiologists.

free parameters (2)
  • top-k retrieval count = 5
    k=5 is chosen by default in Section 4.1, balancing retrieval coverage and efficiency, but no ablation over k is reported.
  • retrieval fine-tuning pairs = 3000
    The retrieval agent is fine-tuned on 3,000 image-report pairs from MIMIC-CXR, chosen without an ablation or justification that this number suffices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cross-modal retrieval trained on MIMIC-CXR transfers to IU X-ray images and reports.
    The CLIP retrieval agent is fine-tuned on MIMIC-CXR but evaluated only on IU X-ray, and no retrieval quality metrics are reported (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Top-k retrieved reports provide clinically relevant context for the target image.
    The whole pipeline assumes retrieved reports contain useful findings, but the paper does not evaluate retrieval precision or relevance (Sections 3.1 and 4.1).
  • domain assumption LLM agents follow grounding instructions and do not introduce unsupported statements.
    Refiner and Synthesis prompts instruct agents to avoid unsupported claims, but the paper provides no verification of this behavior (Sections 3.3 and 3.5).
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-Judge with Claude 3 Opus is a valid clinical quality evaluator.
    No human validation, prompt details, or calibration of the judge are provided, so the 1-10 scores in Table 2 are taken on faith (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Radiology Report Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFD2IR3D

@misc{pith2026250509787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Radiology Report Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFD2IR3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09787}
}
read the original abstract

Radiology report generation (RRG) aims to automatically produce diagnostic reports from medical images, with the potential to enhance clinical workflows and reduce radiologists' workload. While recent approaches leveraging multimodal large language models (MLLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have achieved strong results, they continue to face challenges such as factual inconsistency, hallucination, and cross-modal misalignment. We propose a multimodal multi-agent framework for RRG that aligns with the stepwise clinical reasoning workflow, where task-specific agents handle retrieval, draft generation, visual analysis, refinement, and synthesis. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms a strong baseline in both automatic metrics and LLM-based evaluations, producing more accurate, structured, and interpretable reports. This work highlights the potential of clinically aligned multi-agent frameworks to support explainable and trustworthy clinical AI applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed multi-agent framework for automated RRG. The system decomposes the task into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A case study showing that retrieval and key findings help overcome the limitations of a vision-only agent. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding From Human Perspective: A Multi-agent System for Interactive Egocentric Medical Image Segmentation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EgoMed-Agent reports 71.34% average Dice on a new egocentric medical segmentation benchmark (523 videos, 5 modalities), versus 11.70% for zero-shot text-prompted baselines, using detector + LLM clarification + SAM2 pr...

  2. CogRad: A Cognitively-Inspired Multi-Agent Framework for Radiology Report Generation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-agent Scout–Investigator–Writer–Verifier pipeline with slot-attention regions and inference-time sentence re-examination leads NLG baselines on CheXpert Plus and IU X-Ray, with weaker clinical entity scores.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Multimodal healthcare ai: identifying and designing clinically relevant vision-language applications for radiology

    Nur Yildirim, Hannah Richardson, Maria Teodora Wetscherek, Junaid Bajwa, Joseph Jacob, Mark Ames Pin- nock, Stephen Harris, Daniel Coelho De Castro, Shruthi Bannur, Stephanie Hyland, et al. Multimodal healthcare ai: identifying and designing clinically relevant vision-language applications for radiology. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human F...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    A survey on multimodal large language models in radiology for report generation and visual question answering.Information, 16(2):136, 2025

    Ziruo Yi, Ting Xiao, and Mark V Albert. A survey on multimodal large language models in radiology for report generation and visual question answering.Information, 16(2):136, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    The effects of changes in utilization and technological advancements of cross-sectional imaging on radiologist workload.Academic radiology, 22(9):1191–1198, 2015

    Robert J McDonald, Kara M Schwartz, Laurence J Eckel, Felix E Diehn, Christopher H Hunt, Brian J Bartholmai, Bradley J Erickson, and David F Kallmes. The effects of changes in utilization and technological advancements of cross-sectional imaging on radiologist workload.Academic radiology, 22(9):1191–1198, 2015. 6 A Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Rad...

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Accuracy of radiographic readings in the emergency department.The American journal of emergency medicine, 29(1):18–25, 2011

    Bruno Petinaux, Rahul Bhat, Keith Boniface, and Jaime Aristizabal. Accuracy of radiographic readings in the emergency department.The American journal of emergency medicine, 29(1):18–25, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    What makes multi- modal learning better than single (provably).Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:10944– 10956, 2021

    Yu Huang, Chenzhuang Du, Zihui Xue, Xuanyao Chen, Hang Zhao, and Longbo Huang. What makes multi- modal learning better than single (provably).Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:10944– 10956, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Multimodal data in- tegration for oncology in the era of deep neural networks: a review.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7:1408843, 2024

    Asim Waqas, Aakash Tripathi, Ravi P Ramachandran, Paul A Stewart, and Ghulam Rasool. Multimodal data in- tegration for oncology in the era of deep neural networks: a review.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7:1408843, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Introducing meta llama 3: The most capable openly available llm to date.Meta AI, 2024

    AI Meta. Introducing meta llama 3: The most capable openly available llm to date.Meta AI, 2024

    2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    DALL-E3, 2023.https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/

    OpenAI. DALL-E3, 2023.https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/

    2023

  2. [10]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 19730–19742. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Sparkles: Unlocking chats across multiple images for multimodal instruction-following models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16463, 2023

    Yupan Huang, Zaiqiao Meng, Fangyu Liu, Yixuan Su, Nigel Collier, and Yutong Lu. Sparkles: Unlocking chats across multiple images for multimodal instruction-following models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16463, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models.Nature Medicine, pages 1–8, 2025

    Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Mohamed Amin, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen R Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, et al. Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models.Nature Medicine, pages 1–8, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day

    Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:28541–28...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Chemical language models for de novo drug design: Challenges and opportunities.Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 79:102527, 2023

    Francesca Grisoni. Chemical language models for de novo drug design: Challenges and opportunities.Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 79:102527, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Using chatgpt to write patient clinic letters.The Lancet Digital Health, 5(4):e179–e181, 2023

    Stephen R Ali, Thomas D Dobbs, Hayley A Hutchings, and Iain S Whitaker. Using chatgpt to write patient clinic letters.The Lancet Digital Health, 5(4):e179–e181, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Radiology-llama2: Best-in-class large language model for radiology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06419, 2023

    Zhengliang Liu, Yiwei Li, Peng Shu, Aoxiao Zhong, Longtao Yang, Chao Ju, Zihao Wu, Chong Ma, Jie Luo, Cheng Chen, et al. Radiology-llama2: Best-in-class large language model for radiology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06419, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Generation of radiology findings in chest x-ray by leveraging collaborative knowledge.Procedia Computer Science, 221:1102–1109, 2023

    Manuela Daniela Danu, George Marica, Sanjeev Kumar Karn, Bogdan Georgescu, Awais Mansoor, Florin Ghesu, Lucian Mihai Itu, Constantin Suciu, Sasa Grbic, Oladimeji Farri, et al. Generation of radiology findings in chest x-ray by leveraging collaborative knowledge.Procedia Comput...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2:1, 2023

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yixin Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2:1, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alleviating hallucination in large vision- language models with active retrieval augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00555, 2024

    Xiaoye Qu, Qiyuan Chen, Wei Wei, Jishuo Sun, and Jianfeng Dong. Alleviating hallucination in large vision- language models with active retrieval augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00555, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Look, compare, decide: Alleviating hallucination in large vision-language models via multi-view multi-path reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17150, 2024

    Xiaoye Qu, Jiashuo Sun, Wei Wei, and Yu Cheng. Look, compare, decide: Alleviating hallucination in large vision-language models via multi-view multi-path reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17150, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ramm: Retrieval-augmented biomedical visual question answering with multi-modal pre-training

    Zheng Yuan, Qiao Jin, Chuanqi Tan, Zhengyun Zhao, Hongyi Yuan, Fei Huang, and Songfang Huang. Ramm: Retrieval-augmented biomedical visual question answering with multi-modal pre-training. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 547–556, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Improving medical multi-modal contrastive learning with expert annota- tions

    Yogesh Kumar and Pekka Marttinen. Improving medical multi-modal contrastive learning with expert annota- tions. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 468–486. Springer, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Memory-based cross-modal semantic alignment network for radiology report generation.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2024

    Yitian Tao, Liyan Ma, Jing Yu, and Han Zhang. Memory-based cross-modal semantic alignment network for radiology report generation.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Vision-language model for generating textual descriptions from clinical images: Model development and validation study.JMIR Formative Research, 8:e32690, 2024

    Jia Ji, Yongshuai Hou, Xinyu Chen, Youcheng Pan, and Yang Xiang. Vision-language model for generating textual descriptions from clinical images: Model development and validation study.JMIR Formative Research, 8:e32690, 2024. 7 A Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Radiology R...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Bootstrapping large language models for radiology report generation

    Chang Liu, Yuanhe Tian, Weidong Chen, Yan Song, and Yongdong Zhang. Bootstrapping large language models for radiology report generation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18635–18643, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Trrg: Towards truth- ful radiology report generation with cross-modal disease clue enhanced large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12141, 2024

    Yuhao Wang, Chao Hao, Yawen Cui, Xinqi Su, Weicheng Xie, Tao Tan, and Zitong Yu. Trrg: Towards truth- ful radiology report generation with cross-modal disease clue enhanced large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12141, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Large model driven radiology report generation with clinical quality reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06728, 2024

    Zijian Zhou, Miaojing Shi, Meng Wei, Oluwatosin Alabi, Zijie Yue, and Tom Vercauteren. Large model driven radiology report generation with clinical quality reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06728, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Effectively fine-tune to improve large multimodal models for radiology report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01504, 2023

    Yuzhe Lu, Sungmin Hong, Yash Shah, and Panpan Xu. Effectively fine-tune to improve large multimodal models for radiology report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01504, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R2gengpt: Radiology report generation with frozen llms.Meta-Radiology, 1(3):100033, 2023

    Zhanyu Wang, Lingqiao Liu, Lei Wang, and Luping Zhou. R2gengpt: Radiology report generation with frozen llms.Meta-Radiology, 1(3):100033, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Xraygpt: Chest radiographs summarization using medical vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07971, 2023

    Omkar Thawkar, Abdelrahman Shaker, Sahal Shaji Mullappilly, Hisham Cholakkal, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Salman Khan, Jorma Laaksonen, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Xraygpt: Chest radiographs summarization using medical vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Maira-1: A specialised large multimodal model for radiology report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13668, 2023

    Stephanie L Hyland, Shruthi Bannur, Kenza Bouzid, Daniel C Castro, Mercy Ranjit, Anton Schwaighofer, Fer- nando P ´erez-Garc´ıa, Valentina Salvatelli, Shaury Srivastav, Anja Thieme, et al. Maira-1: A specialised large multimodal model for radiology report generation.arXiv prep...

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Medclip: Contrastive learning from unpaired medical images and text

    Zifeng Wang, Zhenbang Wu, Dinesh Agarwal, and Jimeng Sun. Medclip: Contrastive learning from unpaired medical images and text. InProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality, march 2023.URL https://lmsys

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality, march 2023.URL https://lmsys. org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna, ...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Cares: A comprehensive benchmark of trustworthiness in medical vision language models

    Peng Xia, Ze Chen, Juanxi Tian, Yangrui Gong, Ruibo Hou, Yue Xu, Zhenbang Wu, Zhiyuan Fan, Yiyang Zhou, Kangyu Zhu, et al. Cares: A comprehensive benchmark of trustworthiness in medical vision language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:140334–140365, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Conflictbank: A benchmark for evaluating the influence of knowledge conflicts in llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12076, 2024

    Zhaochen Su, Jun Zhang, Xiaoye Qu, Tong Zhu, Yanshu Li, Jiashuo Sun, Juntao Li, Min Zhang, and Yu Cheng. Conflictbank: A benchmark for evaluating the influence of knowledge conflicts in llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12076, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00253, 2024

    Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00253, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Investigating the catastrophic forgetting in multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10313, 2023

    Yuexiang Zhai, Shengbang Tong, Xiao Li, Mu Cai, Qing Qu, Yong Jae Lee, and Yi Ma. Investigating the catastrophic forgetting in multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10313, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The importance of robust features in mitigating catas- trophic forgetting

    Hikmat Khan, Nidhal C Bouaynaya, and Ghulam Rasool. The importance of robust features in mitigating catas- trophic forgetting. In2023 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), pages 752–757. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Surf: Teaching large vision- language models to selectively utilize retrieved information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14083, 2024

    Jiashuo Sun, Jihai Zhang, Yucheng Zhou, Zhaochen Su, Xiaoye Qu, and Yu Cheng. Surf: Teaching large vision- language models to selectively utilize retrieved information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14083, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Retrieval augmented chest x-ray report generation using openai gpt models

    Mercy Ranjit, Gopinath Ganapathy, Ranjit Manuel, and Tanuja Ganu. Retrieval augmented chest x-ray report generation using openai gpt models. InMachine Learning for Healthcare Conference, pages 650–666. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Fact-aware multimodal retrieval augmentation for accurate medical radiology report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15268, 2024

    Liwen Sun, James Zhao, Megan Han, and Chenyan Xiong. Fact-aware multimodal retrieval augmentation for accurate medical radiology report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15268, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mmed-rag: Versatile multimodal rag system for medical vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13085, 2024

    Peng Xia, Kangyu Zhu, Haoran Li, Tianze Wang, Weijia Shi, Sheng Wang, Linjun Zhang, James Zou, and Huaxiu Yao. Mmed-rag: Versatile multimodal rag system for medical vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13085, 2024

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Optimizing relation extraction in medical texts through active learning: A comparative analysis of trade-offs

    Siting Liang, Pablo S ´anchez, and Daniel Sonntag. Optimizing relation extraction in medical texts through active learning: A comparative analysis of trade-offs. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Uncertainty-Aware NLP (UncertaiNLP 2024), pages 23–34, 2024. 8 A Multimodal Mu...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Report generation from x-ray imaging by retrieval-augmented gener- ation and improved image-text matching

    Mario Luca Bernardi and Marta Cimitile. Report generation from x-ray imaging by retrieval-augmented gener- ation and improved image-text matching. In2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Rule: Reliable multimodal rag for factuality in medical vision language models

    Peng Xia, Kangyu Zhu, Haoran Li, Hongtu Zhu, Yun Li, Gang Li, Linjun Zhang, and Huaxiu Yao. Rule: Reliable multimodal rag for factuality in medical vision language models. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1081–1093, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Mdocagent: A multi-modal multi-agent framework for document understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13964, 2025

    Siwei Han, Peng Xia, Ruiyi Zhang, Tong Sun, Yun Li, Hongtu Zhu, and Huaxiu Yao. Mdocagent: A multi-modal multi-agent framework for document understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13964, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Ct-agent: Clinical trial multi-agent with large language model-based reasoning.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2404, 2024

    Ling Yue and Tianfan Fu. Ct-agent: Clinical trial multi-agent with large language model-based reasoning.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2404, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Enhancing diagnostic accuracy through multi-agent conversations: using large language models to mitigate cognitive bias.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14589, 2024

    Yu He Ke, Rui Yang, Sui An Lie, Taylor Xin Yi Lim, Hairil Rizal Abdullah, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, and Nan Liu. Enhancing diagnostic accuracy through multi-agent conversations: using large language models to mitigate cognitive bias.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14589, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Medco: Medical education copilots based on a multi-agent framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12496, 2024

    Hao Wei, Jianing Qiu, Haibao Yu, and Wu Yuan. Medco: Medical education copilots based on a multi-agent framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12496, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537, 2023

    Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Ziming Li, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Are we going mad? benchmarking multi-agent debate between language models for medical q&a

    Andries Petrus Smit, Paul Duckworth, Nathan Grinsztajn, Kale-ab Tessera, Thomas D Barrett, and Arnu Preto- rius. Are we going mad? benchmarking multi-agent debate between language models for medical q&a. InDeep Generative Models for Health Workshop NeurIPS 2023, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Enhancing llms for impression generation in radiology reports through a multi-agent system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06828, 2024

    Fang Zeng, Zhiliang Lyu, Quanzheng Li, and Xiang Li. Enhancing llms for impression generation in radiology reports through a multi-agent system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06828, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Towards interpretable radiology report generation via concept bottlenecks using a multi-agentic rag

    Hasan Md Tusfiqur Alam, Devansh Srivastav, Md Abdul Kadir, and Daniel Sonntag. Towards interpretable radiology report generation via concept bottlenecks using a multi-agentic rag. InEuropean Conference on Infor- mation Retrieval, pages 201–209. Springer, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pag...

    2021

  49. [57]

    Mimic-cxr-jpg, a large publicly available database of labeled chest radiographs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07042, 2019

    Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Nathaniel R Greenbaum, Matthew P Lungren, Chih-ying Deng, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu, Roger G Mark, Seth J Berkowitz, and Steven Horng. Mimic-cxr-jpg, a large publicly available database of labeled chest radiographs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07042, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Preparing a collection of radiology examinations for distribution and retrieval.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(2):304–310, 2016

    Dina Demner-Fushman, Marc D Kohli, Marc B Rosenman, Sonya E Shooshan, Laritza Rodriguez, Sameer Antani, George R Thoma, and Clement J McDonald. Preparing a collection of radiology examinations for distribution and retrieval.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Associati...

    2016

  51. [59]

    Factual serialization enhancement: A key innovation for chest x-ray report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09586, 2024

    Kang Liu, Zhuoqi Ma, Mengmeng Liu, Zhicheng Jiao, Xiaolu Kang, Qiguang Miao, and Kun Xie. Factual serialization enhancement: A key innovation for chest x-ray report generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09586, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. InProceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, 2002

    2002

  53. [61]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries

    Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. InText summarization branches out, pages 74–81, 2004

    2004

  54. [62]

    Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675, 2019

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595–46623, 2023

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595–46623, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Claude 3 haiku: Our fastest model yet, 2024.https://www.anthropic.com/news/ claude-3-haiku

    Anthropic. Claude 3 haiku: Our fastest model yet, 2024.https://www.anthropic.com/news/ claude-3-haiku. 9

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.