pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.00549 · v2 · pith:QNYMSVQLnew · submitted 2025-08-01 · 💻 cs.CV

Your other Left! Vision-Language Models Fail to Identify Relative Positions in Medical Images

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords medicalrelativeimagespositionsanatomicalmodelsvlmsability
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Clinical decision-making relies heavily on understanding relative positions of anatomical structures and anomalies. Therefore, for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to be applicable in clinical practice, the ability to accurately determine relative positions on medical images is a fundamental prerequisite. Despite its importance, this capability remains highly underexplored. To address this gap, we evaluate the ability of state-of-the-art VLMs, GPT-4o, Llama3.2, Pixtral, and JanusPro, and find that all models fail at this fundamental task. Inspired by successful approaches in computer vision, we investigate whether visual prompts, such as alphanumeric or colored markers placed on anatomical structures, can enhance performance. While these markers provide moderate improvements, results remain significantly lower on medical images compared to observations made on natural images. Our evaluations suggest that, in medical imaging, VLMs rely more on prior anatomical knowledge than on actual image content for answering relative position questions, often leading to incorrect conclusions. To facilitate further research in this area, we introduce the MIRP , Medical Imaging Relative Positioning, benchmark dataset, designed to systematically evaluate the capability to identify relative positions in medical images.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Lost in Volume: The CT-SpatialVQA Benchmark for Evaluating Semantic-Spatial Understanding of 3D Medical Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CT-SpatialVQA benchmark shows 3D medical VLMs achieve only 34% average accuracy on semantic-spatial reasoning tasks in CT volumes, often below random chance.

  2. Lost in Volume: The CT-SpatialVQA Benchmark for Evaluating Semantic-Spatial Understanding of 3D Medical Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CT-SpatialVQA benchmark reveals that eight 3D medical VLMs achieve only 34% average accuracy on semantic-spatial reasoning tasks from CT data, frequently below random performance.