Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

MediConfusion: Can you trust your AI radiologist? Probing the reliability of multimodal medical foundation models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.15477 v2 pith:DJHI4QYX submitted 2024-09-23 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords medicalmodelsmllmsfailurehealthcaremediconfusionbenchmarkexisting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have tremendous potential to improve the accuracy, availability, and cost-effectiveness of healthcare by providing automated solutions or serving as aids to medical professionals. Despite promising first steps in developing medical MLLMs in the past few years, their capabilities and limitations are not well-understood. Recently, many benchmark datasets have been proposed that test the general medical knowledge of such models across a variety of medical areas. However, the systematic failure modes and vulnerabilities of such models are severely underexplored with most medical benchmarks failing to expose the shortcomings of existing models in this safety-critical domain. In this paper, we introduce MediConfusion, a challenging medical Visual Question Answering (VQA) benchmark dataset, that probes the failure modes of medical MLLMs from a vision perspective. We reveal that state-of-the-art models are easily confused by image pairs that are otherwise visually dissimilar and clearly distinct for medical experts. Strikingly, all available models (open-source or proprietary) achieve performance below random guessing on MediConfusion, raising serious concerns about the reliability of existing medical MLLMs for healthcare deployment. We also extract common patterns of model failure that may help the design of a new generation of more trustworthy and reliable MLLMs in healthcare.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Multi-human Interactive Talking Dataset

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper contributes a 12-hour multi-person conversational video dataset with pose and speaking annotations, plus a baseline model for generating full-body talking videos of two to four people.

  2. MedBLINK: Probing Basic Perception in Multimodal Language Models for Medicine

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current medical multimodal models, including GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, fail simple perceptual tasks on medical images that human experts solve almost perfectly.

  3. AMVICC: A Novel Benchmark for Cross-Modal Failure Mode Profiling for VLMs and IGMs

    cs.CV 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A cross-modal benchmark derived from MMVP shows VLMs and IGMs share several elementary visual-reasoning failure modes, with IGMs struggling most on explicit attribute-control prompts.

  4. Domain Specific Benchmarks for Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review paper that organizes domain-specific MLLM benchmarks into an eight-discipline taxonomy, with summary tables and performance highlights.

Pith tools