arxiv: 2604.26288 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

CheXthought: A global multimodal dataset of clinical chain-of-thought reasoning and visual attention for chest X-ray interpretation

Sonali Sharma , Jin Long , George Shih , Sarah Eid , Christian Bluethgen , Francine L. Jacobson , Emily B. Tsai , Global Radiology Consortium

show 2 more authors

Ahmed M. Alaa Curtis P. Langlotz

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI

keywords chest x-rayvision-language modelschain-of-thought reasoningvisual attentionradiology AImultimodal datasetclinical reasoninguncertainty prediction

0 comments

The pith

A dataset of radiologists' step-by-step reasoning and eye movements on chest X-rays lets AI models reason more accurately and flag uncertain cases.

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

The paper presents CheXthought, a multimodal collection of over 100,000 radiologist reasoning traces and millions of synchronized visual attention records from 50,312 chest X-rays read by 501 experts across 71 countries. It demonstrates that these traces produce more factually accurate and spatially grounded chain-of-thought outputs than standard vision-language model prompting. Visual attention records supplied at inference time recover overlooked findings and cut hallucinations. Models trained directly on the dataset improve at pathology classification, visual faithfulness, temporal reasoning, and uncertainty expression. The multi-reader structure further allows an image-only predictor of where human readers and AI systems will disagree.

Core claim

CheXthought supplies 103,592 chain-of-thought reasoning traces and 6,609,082 visual attention annotations across 50,312 multi-read chest X-rays from 501 radiologists. When this data is used either to train vision-language models or to supply attention hints at inference time, the resulting systems exceed prior state-of-the-art performance in factual accuracy, spatial grounding, pathology classification, visual faithfulness, temporal reasoning, and uncertainty communication. The same multi-reader annotations enable direct prediction of human-human and human-AI disagreement from the image alone, supporting transparent communication of case difficulty and model reliability.

What carries the argument

Synchronized chain-of-thought reasoning traces and visual attention annotations collected from multiple radiologists, which supply both training supervision and inference-time hints for vision-language models interpreting chest X-rays.

If this is right

Vision-language models trained on CheXthought data achieve stronger pathology classification and visual faithfulness than models trained on image-report pairs alone.
Supplying visual attention data as an inference-time hint recovers missed findings and significantly reduces hallucinations in model outputs.
Models trained on CheXthought exhibit improved temporal reasoning and uncertainty communication compared with prior chain-of-thought approaches.
An image-only predictor trained on CheXthought's multi-reader annotations can forecast both human-human and human-AI disagreement, enabling transparent flagging of difficult cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same collection method could be applied to other imaging modalities to generate comparable reasoning datasets for CT or MRI interpretation.
Predicting disagreement from the image alone could support clinical triage systems that route high-uncertainty cases preferentially to human readers.
The attention and reasoning records might serve as a benchmark for measuring how closely any new model mimics expert visual search strategies.

Load-bearing premise

The collected chain-of-thought traces and visual attention annotations accurately and unbiasedly capture genuine clinical reasoning processes of radiologists, independent of the data collection interface or expert selection.

What would settle it

If vision-language models trained on CheXthought data show no measurable gain in factual accuracy or spatial grounding over models trained on standard image-report pairs when evaluated on a held-out, multi-reader chest X-ray benchmark, the claimed utility of the dataset would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26288 by Ahmed M. Alaa, Christian Bluethgen, Curtis P. Langlotz, Emily B. Tsai, Francine L. Jacobson, George Shih, Global Radiology Consortium, Jin Long, Sarah Eid, Sonali Sharma.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (A) CheXthought Dataset Construction and Annotation Process view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (B) Comparison Between CheXpert Plus Report and CheXthought CoT view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (C) Geographic Distribution of Annotators Contributing Chain-of-Thought and Visual Attention Annotations by Top 25 Countries 2.2 Content of chains-of-thought Each CoT had a median length of 117 words (IQR 67–177) and referenced a median of 66 spatial coordinates (IQR 57–73). Annotators spent a median of 5.3 minutes per CoT (mean 6.9 minutes; IQR 2.5–9.6 minutes), with modest variation across training level… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Clinical Reasoning Patterns in CheXthought view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visual search strategies derived from spatial attention trajectories view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of human visual attention and Grad-CAM maps for CheXthought models. Pearson view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Chest X-ray interpretation is one of the most frequently performed diagnostic tasks in medicine and a primary target for AI development, yet current vision-language models are primarily trained on datasets of paired images and reports, not the cognitive processes and visual attention that underlie clinical reasoning. Here, we present CheXthought, a global, multimodal resource containing 103,592 chain-of-thought reasoning traces and 6,609,082 synchronized visual attention annotations across 50,312 multi-read chest X-rays from 501 radiologists in 71 countries. Our analysis reveals clinical reasoning patterns in how experts deploy distinct visual search strategies, integrate clinical context, and communicate uncertainty. We demonstrate the clinical utility of CheXthought across four dimensions. First, CheXthought reasoning significantly outperforms state-of-the-art vision-language model chain-of-thought in factual accuracy and spatial grounding. Second, visual attention data used as an inference-time hint recovers missed findings and significantly reduces hallucinations. Third, vision-language models trained on CheXthought data achieve significantly stronger pathology classification, visual faithfulness, temporal reasoning and uncertainty communication. Fourth, leveraging CheXthought's multi-reader annotations, we predict both human-human and human-AI disagreement directly from an image, enabling transparent communication of case difficulty, uncertainty and model reliability. These findings establish CheXthought as a resource for advancing multimodal clinical reasoning and the development of more transparent, interpretable vision-language models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CheXthought is a large new dataset of expert CoT traces and attention annotations for chest X-rays from a global radiologist cohort, but the abstract's strong utility claims lack any numbers or details to assess.

read the letter

The main thing here is the release of CheXthought: 103k chain-of-thought traces plus 6.6 million synchronized attention points across 50k chest X-rays read by 501 radiologists in 71 countries. That scale and the pairing of explicit reasoning with gaze data is new compared to existing image-report or attention datasets in the field. The paper lays out a clear collection setup and then walks through four demonstrations of how the resource might be used, including better factual accuracy than standard VLM CoT, attention hints at inference time to catch missed findings, training gains on classification and uncertainty, and direct prediction of human-AI disagreement from the image alone. Those directions make sense for clinical AI work that wants to move beyond paired reports toward modeling actual diagnostic processes. The soft spot is that the abstract asserts significant outperformance and improvements across those four areas without supplying any metrics, baselines, statistical tests, or evaluation details, so the strength of the evidence is impossible to judge from the text. The assumption that the prompted traces and annotations capture genuine, unbiased clinical reasoning also sits on thin ground if the dedicated interface or study instructions changed how participants searched or verbalized compared with normal PACS reading; the paper does not appear to report validation against unprompted workflows. This is a dataset paper aimed at groups building or evaluating clinical vision-language models and at researchers studying expert visual search. Readers who need raw traces and attention maps for training or benchmarking will find it directly useful even if the empirical sections require more scrutiny. I would send it to peer review so the quantitative results and data fidelity can be properly checked.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CheXthought, a large-scale multimodal dataset comprising 103,592 chain-of-thought reasoning traces and 6,609,082 synchronized visual attention annotations collected from 501 radiologists across 71 countries on 50,312 multi-read chest X-rays. It analyzes patterns in expert visual search, clinical context integration, and uncertainty communication, then demonstrates the dataset's utility in four areas: superior factual accuracy and spatial grounding compared to state-of-the-art VLM chain-of-thought, inference-time attention hints that recover missed findings and reduce hallucinations, improved VLM training outcomes for pathology classification, visual faithfulness, temporal reasoning, and uncertainty communication, and direct prediction of human-human and human-AI disagreement from images to communicate case difficulty and model reliability.

Significance. If the empirical demonstrations hold, CheXthought would represent a substantial advance as the first large-scale resource explicitly capturing radiologists' cognitive processes and gaze data rather than just image-report pairs, enabling more interpretable and clinically grounded vision-language models. The global scale, multi-reader annotations, and four distinct utility experiments provide a strong foundation for future work on transparent AI in radiology, particularly the disagreement prediction task which directly addresses model reliability.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of significant outperformance across four dimensions (factual accuracy, hallucination reduction, training gains, and disagreement prediction) are asserted without any quantitative metrics, statistical tests, baselines, or evaluation details in the provided text, leaving the support for these claims difficult to assess and constituting a load-bearing gap for the paper's primary contribution.
[Data collection and analysis sections] Data collection and analysis sections: the assumption that the 103k CoT traces and 6.6M attention points faithfully and unbiasedly reflect natural clinical reasoning processes (independent of the dedicated interface, explicit prompting, synchronized gaze recording, and global expert selection) is not validated against unprompted PACS workflows or non-participating radiologists; this assumption underpins all four utility demonstrations and requires explicit evidence such as inter-rater comparisons or concurrent real-world eye-tracking to be load-bearing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, providing clarifications from the full paper and proposing targeted revisions to improve clarity and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of significant outperformance across four dimensions (factual accuracy, hallucination reduction, training gains, and disagreement prediction) are asserted without any quantitative metrics, statistical tests, baselines, or evaluation details in the provided text, leaving the support for these claims difficult to assess and constituting a load-bearing gap for the paper's primary contribution.

Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise and summarizes findings whose quantitative details, including specific metrics (e.g., accuracy deltas, hallucination rates), statistical tests, and baseline comparisons, appear in the results sections of the full manuscript. We agree this creates an assessment gap for readers and will revise the abstract to incorporate 2-3 key quantitative highlights (such as factual accuracy gains and hallucination reductions with significance indicators) while preserving brevity. revision: yes
Referee: [Data collection and analysis sections] Data collection and analysis sections: the assumption that the 103k CoT traces and 6.6M attention points faithfully and unbiasedly reflect natural clinical reasoning processes (independent of the dedicated interface, explicit prompting, synchronized gaze recording, and global expert selection) is not validated against unprompted PACS workflows or non-participating radiologists; this assumption underpins all four utility demonstrations and requires explicit evidence such as inter-rater comparisons or concurrent real-world eye-tracking to be load-bearing.

Authors: We acknowledge that the dedicated interface and prompting may introduce differences from routine unprompted PACS use. The manuscript already reports inter-rater agreement metrics and analyses stratified by reader experience and geography to support data reliability. We cannot conduct new concurrent real-world eye-tracking studies within the current dataset scope. We will add an explicit limitations paragraph discussing interface effects and the dataset's value as a controlled, large-scale resource for cognitive process modeling, while noting that future work could include PACS validation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical claims rest on external benchmarks and independent model evaluations

full rationale

The paper introduces CheXthought as a new dataset of CoT traces and attention annotations, then demonstrates utility via four empirical evaluations: (1) direct comparison of dataset traces vs. SOTA VLM-generated CoT on factual accuracy/spatial grounding; (2) using attention maps as inference-time hints to improve model outputs; (3) training VLMs on the dataset and measuring gains on pathology classification, faithfulness, temporal reasoning, and uncertainty vs. baselines; (4) training a predictor of human-human/human-AI disagreement from images using the multi-reader annotations as supervision. All steps compare against external SOTA models or standard benchmarks rather than reducing to self-referential fits, definitions, or self-citation chains. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked that collapse back to the dataset construction itself. The central assumption (that annotations reflect genuine reasoning) is a validity concern, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or mathematical derivations. It rests on the domain assumption that expert annotations faithfully represent clinical cognition and on standard practices for dataset curation and model evaluation.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Radiologist-provided chain-of-thought and visual attention data accurately reflect underlying clinical reasoning without substantial collection-induced bias
All four utility claims depend on this premise about data fidelity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5595 in / 1360 out tokens · 80346 ms · 2026-05-07T13:42:40.201502+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

RadThinking: A Dataset for Longitudinal Clinical Reasoning in Radiology
cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

RadThinking releases a large longitudinal CT VQA dataset stratified into foundation perception questions, single-rule reasoning questions, and compositional multi-step chains grounded in clinical reporting standards f...
LiteMedCoT-VL: Parameter-Efficient Adaptation for Medical Visual Question Answering
cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

LiteMedCoT-VL distills chain-of-thought from a 235B model to 2B VLMs via LoRA, reaching 64.9% accuracy on PMC-VQA and beating a 4B zero-shot baseline by 11 points.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Raoof, S. et al. Interpretation of plain chest roentgenogram.Chest141, 545–558 (2012)

2012
[2]

Food and Drug Administration

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical De- vices.https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/ artificial-intelligence-enabled-medical-devices(2026)

2026
[3]

& Winther, O

Liévin, V., Hother, C.E., Motzfeldt, A.G. & Winther, O. Can large language models reason about medical questions?Patterns5, 100943 (2024)

2024
[4]

& Bowman, S.R

Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E. & Bowman, S.R. Language models don’t always say what they think: unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2023)

2023
[5]

Asadi, M. et al. MIRAGE: The Illusion of Visual Understanding. Preprint athttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2603.21687(2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[6]

& Chiffi, D

Andreoletti, M., Berchialla, P., Boniolo, G. & Chiffi, D. Introduction: Foundations of Clinical Reasoning—An Epistemological Stance.Topoi38, 389–394 (2019)

2019
[7]

Karargyris, A. et al. Creation and validation of a chest X-ray dataset with eye-tracking and report dictation for AI development.Sci. Data8, 92 (2021)

2021
[8]

Lanfredi, R. et al. REFLACX, a dataset of reports and eye-tracking data for localization of abnormalities in chest x-rays.Sci. Data9, 350 (2022)

2022
[9]

& Langlotz, C

Kaushal, A., Altman, R. & Langlotz, C. Geographic distribution of US cohorts used to train deep learning algorithms.JAMA324, 1212–1213 (2020)

2020
[10]

arXiv:2405.19538 (2024)

Chambon, P.et al.CheXpert Plus: Augmenting a large chest X-ray dataset with text radiologyreports, patientdemographicsandadditionalimageformats.arXiv2405.19538 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.19538

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19538 2024
[11]

& Armato, S.G

Zinovev, D., Duo, Y., Raicu, D.S., Furst, J. & Armato, S.G. Consensus versus disagree- ment in imaging research: a case study using the LIDC database.J. Digit. Imaging25, 423–436 (2012)

2012
[12]

& Kråkenes, J

Espeland, A., Vetti, N. & Kråkenes, J. Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images.BMC Med. Imaging13, 4 (2013). 42

2013
[13]

& Chunara, R

Kuhlman, C., Jackson, L. & Chunara, R. No computation without representation: Avoiding data and algorithm biases through diversity. Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2002.11836(2020)

work page arXiv 2002
[14]

Myronenko, A. et al. Reasoning Visual Language Model for Chest X-Ray Analysis. Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23968(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Sambara, S. et al. 3DReasonKnee: Advancing Grounded Reasoning in Medical Vision Language Models. Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20967(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Baharoon, M. et al. ReXGroundingCT: A 3D chest CT dataset for segmentation of find- ings from free-text reports. Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22030(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Mong, Safwan S

Irvin, J.et al.CheXpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty la- bels and expert comparison.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell.33, 590–597 (2019). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.07031

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.07031 2019
[18]

NIH chest X-ray dataset.https://www.kaggle.com/ datasets/nih-chest-xrays/data

National Institutes of Health. NIH chest X-ray dataset.https://www.kaggle.com/ datasets/nih-chest-xrays/data
[19]

Johnson, A.E.W. et al. MIMIC-CXR, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports.Sci. Data6, 317 (2019)

2019
[20]

Nguyen, H.Q. et al. VinDr-CXR: an open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist an- notations.Sci. Data9, 429 (2022)

2022
[21]

Nam, Y. et al. Multimodal Large Language Models in Medical Imaging: Current State and Future Directions.Korean J. Radiol.26, 900–923 (2025)

2025
[22]

Quinn, L. et al. Interobserver variability studies in diagnostic imaging: a methodological systematic review.Br. J. Radiol.96, 20220972 (2023)

2023
[23]

& Chilanga, C

Kjelle, E. & Chilanga, C. The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers’ reasons for rejecting images.Insights Imaging13, 36 (2022)

2022
[24]

Ji, Z. et al. Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation.ACM Comput. Surv.55, 248 (2023)

2023
[25]

Teaching machines to doubt.Nat

Celi, L.A. Teaching machines to doubt.Nat. Med.31, 3964 (2025)

2025
[26]

Waite, S. et al. Interpretive error in radiology.AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.208, 739–749 (2017). 43

2017
[27]

Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? AJR Am

Berlin, L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.188, 1173–1178 (2007)

2007
[28]

Van Den Bos, J. et al. The $17.1 billion problem: the annual cost of measurable medical errors.Health Aff.30, 596–603 (2011)

2011
[29]

& Beam, A.L

Kompa, B., Snoek, J. & Beam, A.L. Second opinion needed: communicating uncertainty in medical machine learning.npj Digit. Med.4, 4 (2021)

2021
[30]

Med.32, 1163 (2026)

Show us the evidence for the value of medical AI.Nat. Med.32, 1163 (2026)

2026
[31]

Sanchez, M. et al. AI-clinician collaboration via disagreement prediction: A decision pipeline and retrospective analysis of real-world radiologist-AI interactions.Cell Rep. Med.4, 101207 (2023)

2023
[32]

& Wyatt, J.C

Goddard, K., Roudsari, A. & Wyatt, J.C. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators.J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.19, 121–127 (2012)

2012
[33]

Lyell, D.&Coiera, E.Automationbiasandverificationcomplexity: asystematicreview. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.24, 423–431 (2017)

2017
[34]

Yu, Y. et al. Enhancing clinician trust in AI diagnostics: A dynamic framework for confidence calibration and transparency.Diagnostics15, 2204 (2025)

2025
[35]

& Smith, W.L

White, K., Berbaum, K. & Smith, W.L. The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographs.Invest. Radiol.29, 263–265 (1994)

1994
[36]

Advancing Responsi- ble Healthcare AI: Longitudinal EHR Datasets.https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ advancing-responsible-healthcare-ai-longitudinal-ehr-datasets(2025)

Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. Advancing Responsi- ble Healthcare AI: Longitudinal EHR Datasets.https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ advancing-responsible-healthcare-ai-longitudinal-ehr-datasets(2025)

2025
[37]

& Demner-Fushman, D

Lau, J.J., Gayen, S., Ben Abacha, A. & Demner-Fushman, D. A Dataset of Clinically Generated Visual Questions and Answers about Radiology Images.Sci. Data5, 180251 (2018)

2018
[38]

Zhang, X. et al. PMC-VQA: Visual Instruction Tuning for Medical Visual Question Answering. Preprint athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10415(2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[39]

Hu, Y. et al. OmniMedVQA: A New Large-Scale Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LVLM. InProc. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition22170–22183 (2024). 44 9 Ethics declaration C.P.L.has the following personal financial interests that are not related to this article: has received research funding to his institution from A...

2024