Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Knowledge to Sight: Reasoning over Visual Attributes via Knowledge Decomposition for Abnormality Grounding

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read K2Sight claims that decomposing medical terminology into visual attributes lets a 0.23B model outperform 7B medical VLMs on abnormality grounding.

desk verdict A useful, practical paper on attribute-prompt grounding for compact medical VLMs, but the main ablation changes training and inference prompts together, the abstract oversells the headline gain, and the OOD test is hand-curated at inference. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04572 v1 pith:TSTZS5OA submitted 2025-08-06 cs.CV

Jun Li , Che Liu , Wenjia Bai , Mingxuan Liu , Rossella Arcucci , Cosmin I. Bercea , Julia A. Schnabel This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords abnormalitygroundingvision-languagemodelsmedicalimagingknowledgedecompositionvisualattributeschestX-rayzero-shotgeneralizationdata-efficienttraining
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 tries to establish that the bottleneck in medical abnormality grounding is not model size but the semantic gap between clinical terminology and visual patterns. K2Sight converts each abnormality label into a short prompt describing its shape, density, intensity, and anatomical location, and trains a vision-language model to predict bounding boxes while conditioned on that prompt. A 0.23B model and a 2B model trained on about 1.5% of the data used by specialist systems match or beat 7B-13B medical VLMs on VinDr-CXR, improving mAP50 by up to 9.82 percentage points over the same backbone trained with plain labels. The same attribute prompts improve zero-shot localization on PadChest-GR, including disease categories never seen in training. The reason to care: if true, structured knowledge supervision can substitute for massive datasets and model scale in data-scarce medical settings.

What carries the argument

The Knowledge Decomposition Constructor, a transformation φ that maps a clinical definition d(a) (e.g., 'lung opacity: any abnormal focal or generalized opacity...') to a compact visual instruction k(a) such as 'An area of increased density in the lung fields, typically appearing as a white or grayish patch.' The instruction is built by retrieving expert definitions, having an LLM generate candidates focused on shape, intensity, density, and location, and selecting one by human review. In Semantic-Guided Training, k(a) is inserted into the grounding prompt so the model generates discretized bounding-box coordinates conditioned on both the image and the attribute description; the cross-entrop

What would settle it

Train the same two backbones on VinDr-CXR with plain disease names, then evaluate with attribute prompts (and the reverse: train with attributes, evaluate with plain names). If mAP50 and RoDeO improve only when attribute prompts appear at test time, the claim that decomposition guides training-time region-text alignment is falsified; if gains require attributes during training, the mechanism is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that clinical concepts can be factorized into a handful of visually grounded attributes—shape, radiodensity, intensity pattern, and anatomical location—and that encoding those attributes as instruction-style text in the training prompt transfers spatial knowledge that bare class names do not. This factorization is performed by the Knowledge Decomposition Constructor (KDC): definitions are retrieved from radiology references, a large language model generates candidate visual descriptions, and human reviewers select the most faithful one. Training with the resulting prompt lifts mAP50 by 9.82 points for a Florence-2-based model and 4.19 points for a Qwen2-VL-based model ov

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the performance gain comes from training-time knowledge supervision; the main ablation changes both the training prompt and the test-time prompt at once, so if richer text at evaluation alone explains the gain, the mechanism claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 0.23B model trained on 16,087 VinDr-CXR pairs can match or beat RadVLM (7B, roughly 1M training samples) and MAIRA-2 (13B, roughly 0.5M samples) on the same test split, with the 2B K2Sight variant reaching the best mAP50 at 24.22%.
  • Attribute supervision transfers zero-shot: on PadChest-GR, K2Sight-Base reaches an overall RoDeO score of 41.70% without any PadChest training, above RadVLM's 39.69%.
  • On disease categories never seen in training, K2Sight improves localization (Rloc) by up to 11.85 points and classification (Rcls) by up to 8.22 points over plain-label baselines, indicating transfer rather than memorization of known classes.
  • Masking any single attribute at inference degrades performance; density and location matter most for the small model, and all attributes are needed for high-IoU precision, with mAP75 dropping by more than 3 points under every single-attribute mask.
  • Enriched prompts alone do not fix generalist VLMs: Qwen2-VL-7B with attribute prompts still reaches only 2.27 mAP30, supporting the paper's claim that training-time supervision, not just test-time text, is the source of the gains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's central comparison changes training and evaluation text together; a cross-condition ablation (attribute prompts only at test time, or only at training time) would isolate whether the gain is alignment during training or richer test-time conditioning. If gains appear only at test time, the mechanism story would shift toward prompt engineering.
  • Because the attribute lexicon is generated once per class with human review, the pipeline is reusable: a rubric-driven LLM could produce the same prompts for new or rare vocabularies with no human curation, which the paper's own per-class prompt lists suggest is feasible.
  • The same decomposition idea may transfer to other imaging modalities whose clinical vocabularies are compositional—such as ultrasound echogenicity or pathology texture—where per-class attributes could supply the same inductive bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes K2Sight, a two-stage framework for abnormality grounding in chest X-rays. The first stage (Knowledge Decomposition Constructor) retrieves clinical definitions from radiology ontologies and uses GPT-4o to distill them into concise attribute-based visual descriptions (shape, intensity, density, location), with human selection of the final prompt per class. The second stage fine-tunes compact VLMs (Florence-2 0.23B and Qwen2-VL-2B) using these descriptions as prompts during training and inference. The authors report that K2Sight models trained on only 1.5% of the data used by large medical VLMs achieve comparable or better mAP and RoDeO scores on VinDr-CXR and PadChest-GR, including zero-shot localization of unseen diseases. The core ablation compares K2Sight against the same backbones fine-tuned with plain disease names.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, K2Sight would be a valuable data-efficient alternative to large-scale medical VLM pretraining, with interpretable attribute supervision as the key inductive bias. The framework is clearly motivated, the two-stage design is practical, and the supplementary material provides detailed prompts, implementation settings, and extensive qualitative results. The paper is also reproducible: code and model weights are promised, and the evaluation uses public benchmarks. However, the evidence for the training-time benefit of knowledge decomposition is currently confounded, and the headline improvement number is misattributed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Table 3] The central ablation changes two variables at once: 'w/o KDC' uses plain disease names in both training and inference, while 'w/ KDC' uses attribute descriptions in both phases. The observed gains (e.g., +9.82 mAP50, +17.13 Rloc for Florence-2) could therefore stem largely from richer test-time text rather than from training-time supervision. The paper's core claim that knowledge decomposition guides region-text alignment during training is unsupported. Please add cross-condition ablations: (a) train without KDC and evaluate with attribute prompts; (b) train with KDC and evaluate with plain disease names. This will isolate the contribution of training-time supervision.
  2. [Section 4.3 / Table 5] The OOD evaluation suffers from the same confound. For unseen classes, K2Sight models receive hand-curated attribute descriptions (Table 9) at inference, while the baselines are prompted with plain class names. The improved zero-shot localization could thus be a test-time prompt effect, not a sign of training-time generalization from knowledge decomposition. Moreover, curating attribute descriptions specifically for the OOD test classes introduces potential test-set information. Please evaluate K2Sight with plain class names on the OOD subset, or explicitly frame the experiment as measuring the benefit of test-time attribute prompting.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The claim 'improving mAP50 by up to 9.82 percentage points' is presented in the context of comparing against 7B+ medical VLMs. However, Table 3 shows that the +9.82 mAP50 gain is from the ablation (K2Sight-Light vs. Florence-2 w/o KDC), not from the comparison to RadVLM or MAIRA-2 in Table 2, where the largest mAP50 improvement is 2.36 points. Please correct the abstract and introduction so the 9.82 pp is attributed to the ablation and not to the SOTA comparison.
  4. [Sections 4.1–4.3, Tables 1–5] All results are from single runs without error bars or significance tests. Several reported improvements are very small (e.g., +0.07 mAP95_50 and +0.77 mAP50 for Qwen2-VL on PadChest-GR), and the OOD gains (e.g., +2.49 Rtotal for K2Sight-Light) could be within run-to-run variability. Please report results over multiple seeds with standard deviations, or provide significance tests for the main claims, especially because the paper's quantitative conclusions rely on small differences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3 / Notation] The table header uses 'w/ KD' while the text and takeaway use 'KDC'; unify the notation.
  2. [Section 4.2] In the attribute ablation description, 'Rcls by 1.47 % points and Rcls by 1.47 % points' is duplicated; also 'worth' should be 'worst'.
  3. [Naming] The paper inconsistently uses 'K2Sight-Light' and 'K2Sight-Lite'; choose one spelling throughout.
  4. [Supplementary Table 6] The result that zero-shot generalist VLMs with enhanced prompts improve only modestly (Qwen2-VL-7B mAP50 0.48→1.07 on VinDr-CXR) is relevant to the inference-prompt confound. Consider citing this explicitly in the main paper when discussing the ablation.
  5. [Section 4.3] The metric name 'RoDeo' (in 'RoDeo' within the text) should be 'RoDeO' for consistency with the defined acronym.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: K2Sight's prompts are external knowledge inputs, and its predictions are evaluated on held-out public benchmarks without fitted-to-target parameters.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The central mechanism is a knowledge-decomposition constructor (Sec. 3.1) that retrieves clinical definitions from external radiology sources (Fleischner Society, Radiopaedia, VinDr-CXR documentation), distills them via GPT-4o into visual attribute descriptions, and selects the final descriptions by human review. These attribute prompts are then used as conditioning text in a standard autoregressive cross-entropy grounding objective (Sec. 3.2). No equation in the paper fits a parameter to the evaluation labels, no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the fitted prompt, and no 'prediction' reduces by construction to an input. The principal experimental comparisons are against external public benchmarks (VinDr-CXR, PadChest-GR) and external baselines (RadVLM, MAIRA-2, generalist VLMs), so the headline claims are independently checkable. The authors' self-citations are incidental background citations, not load-bearing arguments or uniqueness theorems. The strongest methodological caveat is that the core ablation (Table 3) changes both the training prompt and the inference prompt simultaneously, so the isolated contribution of training-time supervision is not fully established; however, this is an experimental confound, not a circular derivation. Supplementary Table 6 partially addresses the test-time-only effect, and the OOD attribute descriptions (Table 9) are class-level semantic knowledge rather than fitted outputs. Concerns about ablations or generalizability belong to correctness risk, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The framework introduces no fitted scalar parameters in the physics sense; the numbers that shape the result are hand-chosen design decisions (attribute set, candidate count, decoding temperature, human selection) plus domain assumptions about the sufficiency and accuracy of the distilled descriptions. No new physical or representational entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Visual attribute set = 4 attributes: shape, intensity, density, location
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.1(b) as the core visual primitives; the central claim that decomposing concepts into these attributes helps depends on this choice.
  • Candidate pool size N = 5
    Section 3.1(b) and Supp. 7.3; the number of GPT-4o samples per abnormality class, affecting prompt quality.
  • GPT-4o decoding temperature and top-p = 0.7 / 0.7
    Supp. 7.3; chosen manually to balance creativity and coherence of generated descriptions.
  • Human prompt selection = 1 description per class
    Section 3.1(c); a domain-aware annotator selects one candidate per class. This subjective, unreported step shapes all downstream results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Clinical definitions from the Fleischner Society glossary and Radiopaedia accurately capture the visual manifestations of abnormalities
    Section 3.1(a) retrieves definitions from [16,34]; if these definitions are not visually grounded, the distilled prompts inherit the error.
  • domain assumption Shape, intensity, density, and anatomical location suffice as a representational space for radiograph abnormality grounding
    Section 3.1(b) states these 'serve as the common representational space between expert interpretation and model perception'; no evidence is given that these four attributes are complete or sufficient.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o can generate visually faithful descriptions from clinical definitions
    Section 3.1(b) uses LLM generation with human selection as a safety net; residual GPT-4o errors could propagate into prompts and results.
  • domain assumption Weighted box fusion of multi-radiologist annotations produces correct ground truth
    Section 4 and Supp. 6.1 follow [33]; annotation inconsistencies and fusion choices are baked into every reported metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge to Sight: Reasoning over Visual Attributes via Knowledge Decomposition for Abnormality Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSTZS5OA

@misc{pith2026250804572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge to Sight: Reasoning over Visual Attributes via Knowledge Decomposition for Abnormality Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSTZS5OA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04572}
}
abstract

In this work, we address the problem of grounding abnormalities in medical images, where the goal is to localize clinical findings based on textual descriptions. While generalist Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel in natural grounding tasks, they often struggle in the medical domain due to rare, compositional, and domain-specific terms that are poorly aligned with visual patterns. Specialized medical VLMs address this challenge via large-scale domain pretraining, but at the cost of substantial annotation and computational resources. To overcome these limitations, we propose \textbf{Knowledge to Sight (K2Sight)}, a framework that introduces structured semantic supervision by decomposing clinical concepts into interpretable visual attributes, such as shape, density, and anatomical location. These attributes are distilled from domain ontologies and encoded into concise instruction-style prompts, which guide region-text alignment during training. Unlike conventional report-level supervision, our approach explicitly bridges domain knowledge and spatial structure, enabling data-efficient training of compact models. We train compact models with 0.23B and 2B parameters using only 1.5\% of the data required by state-of-the-art medical VLMs. Despite their small size and limited training data, these models achieve performance on par with or better than 7B+ medical VLMs, with up to 9.82\% improvement in $mAP_{50}$. Code and models: \href{https://lijunrio.github.io/K2Sight/}{\textcolor{SOTAPink}{https://lijunrio.github.io/K2Sight/}}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04572 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Knowledge to Sight (K2Sight). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the K2Sight framework. Top: Knowledge Decomposition. Clinical definitions are retrieved and decomposed into shape, intensity, density and location as core visual attributes. A large language model generates attribute-specific prompts, and human evaluation selects the most faithful and discriminative ones. Bottom: Semantic-Guided Training. Each image is paired with the selected prompts and used to train a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization examples from four models: RadVLM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the 22 abnormality types in the VinDr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the 24 abnormality types in the PadChest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative examples of abnormality grounding across models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative examples of abnormality grounding across models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LoFi: Location-Aware Fine-Grained Representation Learning for Chest X-ray

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    LoFi adds location-aware captioning loss to jointly optimize fine-grained representations, yielding better retrieval and grounding on MIMIC-CXR and PadChest-GR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    GPT-4 technical report

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

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics ap- proach

    Hugo JWL Aerts, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez, Ralph TH Leijenaar, Chintan Parmar, Patrick Grossmann, Susana Car- valho, Johan Bussink, Rene Monshouwer, Benjamin Haibe- Kains, and Philippe Lambin. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics ap- proach. Nature communications, 5:4006, 2014. 4

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Minigpt-med: Large language model as a general interface for radiology diagnosis

    Asma Alkhaldi, Raneem Alnajim, Layan Alabdullatef, Rawan Alyahya, Jun Chen, Deyao Zhu, Ahmed Alsinan, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-med: Large language model as a general interface for radiology diagnosis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04106, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Healthbench: Evaluating large language models towards improved human health

    Rahul K Arora, Jason Wei, Rebecca Soskin Hicks, Pre- ston Bowman, Joaquin Qui ˜nonero-Candela, Foivos Tsim- pourlas, Michael Sharman, Meghan Shah, Andrea Vallone, Alex Beutel, et al. Healthbench: Evaluating large language models towards improved human health. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08775, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, 2023. 1, 2

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Maira-2: Grounded radiology report genera- tion

    Shruthi Bannur, Kenza Bouzid, Daniel C Castro, Anton Schwaighofer, Anja Thieme, Sam Bond-Taylor, Maximilian Ilse, Fernando P ´erez-Garc´ıa, Valentina Salvatelli, Harshita Sharma, et al. Maira-2: Grounded radiology report genera- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04449, 2024. 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 15

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Making the most of text semantics to improve biomedical vision–language processing

    Benedikt Boecking, Naoto Usuyama, Shruthi Bannur, Daniel C Castro, Anton Schwaighofer, Stephanie Hyland, Maria Wetscherek, Tristan Naumann, Aditya Nori, Javier Alvarez-Valle, et al. Making the most of text semantics to improve biomedical vision–language processing. In Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1–21. Springer,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Padchest: A large chest x-ray image dataset with multi-label annotated reports

    Aurelia Bustos, Antonio Pertusa, Jose-Maria Salinas, and Maria De La Iglesia-Vaya. Padchest: A large chest x-ray image dataset with multi-label annotated reports. Medical Image Analysis, 66:101797, 2020. 1, 5

    work page 2020

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Padchest-gr: A bilingual chest X-ray dataset for grounded radiology report generation

    Daniel C Castro, Aurelia Bustos, Shruthi Bannur, Stephanie L Hyland, Kenza Bouzid, Maria Teodora Wetscherek, Maria Dolores S ´anchez-Valverde, Lara Jaques-P´erez, Lourdes P ´erez-Rodr´ıguez, Kenji Takeda, et al. Padchest-gr: A bilingual chest X-ray dataset for grounded radiolo...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    CheXpert Plus: Augmenting a large chest X-ray dataset with text ra- diology reports, patient demographics and additional image formats

    Pierre Chambon, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Thomas Sounack, Shih-Cheng Huang, Zhihong Chen, Maya Varma, Steven QH Truong, Chu The Chuong, and Curtis P Langlotz. CheXpert Plus: Augmenting a large chest X-ray dataset with text ra- diology reports, patient demographics and additional ...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Align, rea- son and learn: Enhancing medical vision-and-language pre- training with knowledge

    Zhihong Chen, Guanbin Li, and Xiang Wan. Align, rea- son and learn: Enhancing medical vision-and-language pre- training with knowledge. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on multimedia , pages 5152–5161,

  4. [12]

    Chexagent: Towards a foun- dation model for chest X-ray interpretation

    Zhihong Chen, Varma, et al. Chexagent: Towards a foun- dation model for chest X-ray interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12208, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Preparing a collection of radiology examinations for distribution and re- trieval

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

    2016

  6. [14]

    RadVLM: A multitask conversa- tional vision-language model for radiology

    Nicolas Deperrois, Hidetoshi Matsuo, Samuel Ruip ´erez- Campillo, Moritz Vandenhirtz, Sonia Laguna, Alain Ryser, Koji Fujimoto, Mizuho Nishio, Thomas M Sutter, Ju- lia E V ogt, et al. RadVLM: A multitask conversa- tional vision-language model for radiology. arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025

  7. [15]

    Softclip: Softer cross-modal alignment makes clip stronger

    Yuting Gao, Jinfeng Liu, Zihan Xu, Tong Wu, Enwei Zhang, Ke Li, Jie Yang, Wei Liu, and Xing Sun. Softclip: Softer cross-modal alignment makes clip stronger. In Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1860–1868, 2024. 3

    2024

  8. [16]

    Fleischner society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging

    David M Hansell, Alexander A Bankier, Heber MacMahon, Theresa C McLoud, Nestor L Muller, and Jacques Remy. Fleischner society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology, 246(3):697–722, 2008. 3

    2008

  9. [17]

    A survey of knowledge enhanced pre-trained language models

    Linmei Hu, Zeyi Liu, Ziwang Zhao, Lei Hou, Liqiang Nie, and Juanzi Li. A survey of knowledge enhanced pre-trained language models. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(4):1413–1430, 2023. 3

    2023

  10. [18]

    Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison

    Jeremy Irvin, Pranav Rajpurkar, Michael Ko, Yifan Yu, Sil- viana Ciurea-Ilcus, Chris Chute, Henrik Marklund, Behzad Haghgoo, Robyn Ball, Katie Shpanskaya, et al. Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison. In Proceedings of the AAA...

    2019

  11. [19]

    MIMIC-CXR-JPG, a large publicly available database of labeled chest radiographs

    Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Nathaniel R Green- baum, 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....

    1901 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Natural language understanding and inference with 9 mllm in visual question answering: A survey

    Jiayi Kuang, Ying Shen, Jingyou Xie, Haohao Luo, Zhe Xu, Ronghao Li, Yinghui Li, Xianfeng Cheng, Xika Lin, and Yu Han. Natural language understanding and inference with 9 mllm in visual question answering: A survey. ACM Com- puting Surveys, 57(8):1–36, 2025. 2

    2025

  13. [21]

    Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Peiyuan Zhang, Yanwei Li, Zi- wei Liu, et al. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    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, 36:28541–28564,

  15. [23]

    A self-guided framework for radiology report generation

    Jun Li, Shibo Li, Ying Hu, and Huiren Tao. A self-guided framework for radiology report generation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, pages 588–598. Springer, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ultrasound report generation with cross-modality feature alignment via unsupervised guidance

    Jun Li, Tongkun Su, Baoliang Zhao, Faqin Lv, Qiong Wang, Nassir Navab, Ying Hu, and Zhongliang Jiang. Ultrasound report generation with cross-modality feature alignment via unsupervised guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00644 ,

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Language models meet anomaly detection for better interpretability and generalizability

    Jun Li, Su Hwan Kim, Philip M ¨uller, Lina Felsner, Daniel Rueckert, Benedikt Wiestler, Julia A Schnabel, and Cosmin I Bercea. Language models meet anomaly detection for better interpretability and generalizability. In Medical Image Com- puting and Computer Assisted Interventi...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Medical visual ques- tion answering: A survey

    Zhihong Lin, Donghao Zhang, et al. Medical visual ques- tion answering: A survey. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 143:102611, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    2023

  19. [27]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023. 3

    2023

  20. [28]

    DeepSeek-vl: towards real-world vision- language understanding

    Haoyu Lu, Wen Liu, Bo Zhang, Bingxuan Wang, Kai Dong, Bo Liu, Jingxiang Sun, Tongzheng Ren, Zhuoshu Li, Hao Yang, et al. DeepSeek-vl: towards real-world vision- language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05525,

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Integrating language into medical visual recognition and reasoning: A survey

    Yinbin Lu and Alan Wang. Integrating language into medical visual recognition and reasoning: A survey. Medical Image Analysis, 102:103514, 2025. 2

    2025

  22. [30]

    Devide: Faceted medical knowledge for improved medical vision-language pre-training

    Haozhe Luo, Ziyu Zhou, Corentin Royer, Anjany Sekuboy- ina, and Bjoern Menze. Devide: Faceted medical knowledge for improved medical vision-language pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03618, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Robust detection outcome: A metric for pathology detection in med- ical images

    Felix Meissen, Philip M ¨uller, Georgios Kaissis, et al. Robust detection outcome: A metric for pathology detection in med- ical images. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 2023. 5

    2023

  24. [32]

    Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner

    Michael Moor, Qian Huang, Shirley Wu, Michihiro Ya- sunaga, Yash Dalmia, Jure Leskovec, Cyril Zakka, Ed- uardo Pontes Reis, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner. In Machine Learning for Health (ML4H), pages 353–367. PMLR, 2023. 3

    2023

  25. [33]

    Chex: Interactive localization and region description in chest X-ray

    Philip M ¨uller, Georgios Kaissis, and Daniel Rueckert. Chex: Interactive localization and region description in chest X-ray. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 92–111. Springer, 2024. 5, 12

    2024

  26. [34]

    Vindr-cxr: An open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist’s annotations

    Ha Q Nguyen, Khanh Lam, Linh T Le, Hieu H Pham, Dat Q Tran, Dung B Nguyen, Dung D Le, Chi M Pham, Hang TT Tong, Diep H Dinh, et al. Vindr-cxr: An open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist’s annotations. Scientific Data, 9(1):429, 2022. 3, 5, 12, 14

    2022

  27. [35]

    A survey on performance metrics for object-detection algo- rithms

    Rafael Padilla, Sergio L Netto, and Eduardo AB Da Silva. A survey on performance metrics for object-detection algo- rithms. In 2020 International Conference on Systems, Sig- nals and Image Processing (IWSSIP), pages 237–242. IEEE,

    2020

  28. [36]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    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 supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Radiomics

    Radiopaedia.org. Radiomics. https://radiopaedia. org/, 2023. 4, 14

    2023

  30. [38]

    Medgemma technical report

    Andrew Sellergren, Sahar Kazemzadeh, Tiam Jaroen- sri, Atilla Kiraly, Madeleine Traverse, Timo Kohlberger, Shawn Xu, Fayaz Jamil, C ´ıan Hughes, Charles Lau, et al. Medgemma technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05201, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Medical dialogue system: A survey of cat- egories, methods, evaluation and challenges

    Xiaoming Shi, Zeming Liu, Li Du, Yuxuan Wang, Hongru Wang, Yuhang Guo, Tong Ruan, Jie Xu, Xiaofan Zhang, and Shaoting Zhang. Medical dialogue system: A survey of cat- egories, methods, evaluation and challenges. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Medical vision language pretraining: A survey

    Prashant Shrestha, Sanskar Amgain, Bidur Khanal, Cris- tian A Linte, and Binod Bhattarai. Medical vision language pretraining: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06224 ,

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Toward expert-level med- ical question answering with large language models

    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 med- ical question answering with large language models. Nature Medicine, pages 1–8, 2025. 2

    2025

  34. [42]

    From show to tell: A survey on deep learning-based image captioning

    Matteo Stefanini, Marcella Cornia, et al. From show to tell: A survey on deep learning-based image captioning. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 45(1):539–559, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  35. [43]

    Interactive and explainable region-guided radiol- ogy report generation

    Tim Tanida, Philip M ¨uller, Georgios Kaissis, and Daniel Rueckert. Interactive and explainable region-guided radiol- ogy report generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7433–7442, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  36. [44]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean- Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gemma 3 technical report

    Gemma Team, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Ta- tiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ram ´e, Morgane Rivi `ere, 10 et al. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Multi-granularity cross-modal align- ment for generalized medical visual representation learn- ing

    Fuying Wang, Yuyin Zhou, Shujun Wang, Varut Vardhanab- huti, and Lequan Yu. Multi-granularity cross-modal align- ment for generalized medical visual representation learn- ing. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 33536–33549, 2022. 3

    2022

  39. [47]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024. 5, 15

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Medklip: Medical knowledge enhanced language-image pre-training for x-ray diagnosis

    Chaoyi Wu, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. Medklip: Medical knowledge enhanced language-image pre-training for x-ray diagnosis. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 21372–21383, 2023. 3

    2023

  41. [49]

    Medkp: Medical dialogue with knowledge enhancement and clinical pathway encoding

    Jiageng Wu, Xian Wu, Yefeng Zheng, and Jie Yang. Medkp: Medical dialogue with knowledge enhancement and clinical pathway encoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06611, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chest imagenome dataset for clinical reasoning

    Joy T Wu, Nkechinyere N Agu, Ismini Lourentzou, Arjun Sharma, Joseph A Paguio, Jasper S Yao, Edward C Dee, William Mitchell, Satyananda Kashyap, Andrea Giovannini, et al. Chest imagenome dataset for clinical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.00316, 2021. 1, 3

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Florence-2: Ad- vancing a unified representation for a variety of vision tasks

    Bin Xiao, Haiping Wu, Weijian Xu, et al. Florence-2: Ad- vancing a unified representation for a variety of vision tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4818–4829, 2024. 1, 2, 5

    2024

  44. [52]

    To- wards visual grounding: A survey

    Linhui Xiao, Xiaoshan Yang, Xiangyuan Lan, et al. To- wards visual grounding: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20206, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gmai-mmbench: A comprehensive multimodal evaluation benchmark towards general medical ai

    Jin Ye, Guoan Wang, Yanjun Li, Zhongying Deng, Wei Li, Tianbin Li, Haodong Duan, Ziyan Huang, Yanzhou Su, Benyou Wang, et al. Gmai-mmbench: A comprehensive multimodal evaluation benchmark towards general medical ai. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 94327–...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Knowledge-enhanced visual-language pre- training on chest radiology images.Nature Communications, 14(1):4542, 2023

    Xiaoman Zhang, Chaoyi Wu, Ya Zhang, Weidi Xie, and Yanfeng Wang. Knowledge-enhanced visual-language pre- training on chest radiology images.Nature Communications, 14(1):4542, 2023. 3

    2023

  47. [55]

    Pmc-VQA: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answer- ing

    Xiaoman Zhang, Chaoyi Wu, Ziheng Zhao, et al. Pmc-VQA: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answer- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models

    Jinguo Zhu, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Zhaoyang Liu, Shen- glong Ye, Lixin Gu, Hao Tian, Yuchen Duan, Weijie Su, Jie Shao, et al. Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479, 2025. 1, 2, 5, 15 11 K...

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Knowledge Decomposition Constructor

    Method 3 3.1. Knowledge Decomposition Constructor . . . 3 3.2. Semantic-Guided Training . . . . . . . . . . 5

  50. [58]

    Comparison Results

    Experiments 5 4.1. Comparison Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Ablation Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

  51. [59]

    Conclusion and Discussion 8

  52. [60]

    Details of VinDr-CXR

    Dataset Details 12 6.1. Details of VinDr-CXR . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Details of PadChest-GR . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. Annotation Preprocess for Florence-2 . . . . 13 6.4. Annotation Preprocess for Qwen2-VL-Instruct 13

  53. [61]

    K2Sight Framework Pseudocode

    Further Implementation Details of K2Sight 14 7.1. K2Sight Framework Pseudocode . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Clinical Definition Collection . . . . . . . . 14 7.3. Visual Attribute Extraction Parameters . . . 14 7.4. Training Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. Inference Set...

  54. [62]

    Comparison Model Checkpoints

    Experiments 15 8.1. Comparison Model Checkpoints . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Attribute-Conditioned Ablation Study . . . . 15 8.3. Further Results on Generalist VLMs with Our Enhanced Prompts . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.4. More Visualization Results . . . . . . . . . . 15

  55. [63]

    bbox_2d": [x1, y1, x2, y2],

    Dataset Details In this section, we provide detailed statistics and data char- acteristics of the two datasets used in our experiments: VinDr-CXRR [34] and PadChest-GR [9]. This supplement presents additional information relevant to our evaluation. 6.1. Details of VinDr-CXR We...

  56. [64]

    K2Sight Framework Pseudocode We further outline the complete pseudocode of the K2Sight framework

    Further Implementation Details of K2Sight 7.1. K2Sight Framework Pseudocode We further outline the complete pseudocode of the K2Sight framework. It consists of two core stages. In the first stage, the Knowledge Decomposition Constructor extracts and distills clinical definitio...

  57. [65]

    Comparison Model Checkpoints All comparision models are using their publicly available checkpoints

    Experiments 8.1. Comparison Model Checkpoints All comparision models are using their publicly available checkpoints. These include general-purpose models such as Qwen2-VL [47] and InternVL3 [56], as well as domain- specific baselines like RadVLM [14] and MAIRA-2 [6]. All evalu...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.