Organizations: Southwest Jiaotong University · RIKEN · Hokkaido University · Westlake University · The University of Tokyo · Shenzhen People’s Hospital · Li Auto Inc.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has advanced medical visual question answering (VQA), yet most existing CoT rationales are free-form and fail to capture the structured reasoning process clinicians actually follow. This work asks: Can traceable, multi-step reasoning supervision improve reasoning accuracy and the interpretability of Medical VQA? To this end, we introduce Step-CoT, a large-scale medical reasoning dataset with expert-curated, structured multi-step CoT aligned to clinical diagnostic workflows, implicitly grounding the model's reasoning in radiographic evidence. Step-CoT comprises more than 10K real clinical cases and 70K VQA pairs organized around diagnostic workflows, providing supervised intermediate steps that guide models to follow valid reasoning trajectories. To effectively learn from Step-CoT, we further introduce a teacher-student framework with a dynamic graph-structured focusing mechanism that prioritizes diagnostically informative steps while filtering out less relevant contexts. Our experiments show that using Step-CoT can improve reasoning accuracy and interpretability. Benchmark: github.com/hahaha111111/Step-CoT. Dataset Card: huggingface.co/datasets/fl-15o/Step-CoT
Figures & tables
Dataset
Instances
CoT Construction
Expert Involvement
Clinical Workflow
PMC-VQA [ 47 ]
227K
× No CoT
✓ Yes
× No
Med-GRIT-270k [ 19 ]
270k QA pairs
✓ GPT-generated
× No experts
× No
MedCoT [ 26 ]
50k Extends Med-VQA
✓ Expert validation
✓ Yes
✓ Partial
ReasonMed [ 3 ]
370k reasoning samples
✓ Agent-generated
✓ Multi-agent validation
× No
HVCR [ 11 ]
31k QA pairs
Expert validation
✓ Yes
× No
V2T-CoT [ 41 ]
39k examples
✓ GPT-generated CoTs
× No experts
× No
Table 1: Comparison of recent medical reasoning datasets with Step-CoT.
Figure 1: Overview of the Step-CoT dataset. (A) Conventional Med-VQA approaches, where models take an image and a question as input, perform multi-modal feature fusion and output a diagnostic answer. Although leveraging multi-modal knowledge, this paradigm lacks interpretability and often yields limited diagnostic accuracy. (B) Enhances interpretability by integrating large language models with CoT reasoning to generate intermediate explanations; however, such reasoning is often unreliable. (C) Our proposed Step-CoT dataset and training framework, which introduces explicit intermediate supervision. By guiding the model to learn structured clinical reasoning steps, Step-CoT not only improves interpretability through trustworthy intermediate reasoning but also enhances diagnostic accuracy.
Component
Description and Implementation
Clinical Questions
Sequential questions derived from radiological diagnostic pathways, progressing from abnormality detection to final diagnosis.
Answer Logic
• Direct answers from explicit report content. • “N/A” when the question is clinically irrelevant. • “No Answer” when information is missing, with inference attempted from available evidence.
Reasoning Chains
Each reasoning step required explicit justifications derived directly from report content or clinically valid inferences. This requirement ensures that model outputs remain grounded in available clinical evidence while maintaining the structured analytical rigor characteristic of expert radiological interpretation.
Table 2: Components of individual case analysis
Figure 2: Distribution and statistics for the data sources, disease prevalence, answer distributions, and reasoning lengths in the Step-CoT dataset. (A) The inner ring illustrates the proportional distribution across different datasets, while the outer ring represents the distribution of various disease categories within the datasets. (B) This confusion matrix, organized by disease categories and reasoning steps, visualizes the average reasoning chain length. Each cell contains a pie chart representing the statistical distribution of samples across different chain lengths, while the marginal histograms on the axes display the sample count distributions by chain length for individual steps (x-axis) and disease categories (y-axis). (C) This diagram presents the outcome transition statistics between consecutive reasoning steps, mapping the flow of diagnostic conclusions throughout the clinical reasoning pathway. The name of each annotation (e.g., A1) can be referred to in the dataset description section of Appendix Sec. B.
Model
Accuracy
mAUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
LVLMs
LLaVA-Med [ 20 ]
42.7
58.3
42.7
79.4
Med-Flamingo [ 28 ]
30.1
61.2
28.4
89.8
Visual foundation models
VisualBERT [ 24 ]
56.2(+9.3)
48.8(+14.3)
8.5(+1.6)
89.1(+2.7)
CLIP [ 31 ]
64.7(+4.5)
48.8(+3.8)
10.1(+1.9)
87.5(+2.1)
Table 3: Test results of diagnosis step on different models using Step-CoT(%). Entries are reported as a(+b) , where a is the performance without Step-CoT and b is the improvement with it. The best results in each column are highlighted in bold , and the second-best values are underlined .
Figure 3: Fine-tuning an LVLM with Step-CoT-based intermediate constraints under verifiable instructions. The testing of different steps is conducted in independent dialogue sessions. The model progressively adjusts its stepwise reasoning, produces coherent intermediate steps, and converges to the correct final diagnosis; this demonstrates that Step-CoT’s structured intermediate constraints strengthen model reasoning and reliably guide it to accurate conclusions.
Model
Accuracy
mAUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
VisualBERT [ 24 ]
25.7(+6.3)
52.1(+4.3)
30.8(+4.7)
73.9(+3.9)
CLIP [ 31 ]
26.8(+7.3)
53.3(+4.6)
18.4(+3.3)
79.7(+3.7)
ALBEF [ 23 ]
30.4(+5.2)
58.3(+3.1)
38.4(+3.5)
81.5(+2.9)
BLIP [ 22 ]
27.5(+6.1)
52.7(+3.7)
17.9(+2.9)
78.2(+3.5)
FLAVA [ 35 ]
28.9(+5.5)
56.8(+2.9)
35.5(+4.1)
77.3(+3.0)
biomedclip [ 46 ]
33.6(+5.8)
61.9(+3.6)
42.7(+3.9)
85.6(+2.6)
Table 4: Transfer performance comparison with and without using Step-CoT on a different test dataset (%). Entries are reported as a(+b) , where a is the performance without Step-CoT and b is the improvement with it. The best value in each column is bold and the second best is underlined .
Detection
Distribution
Location
Diagnosis
Clinician †
72.1
66.0
66.0
73.1
Teacher †
88.5
78.4
72.8
79.8
Student †
80.4
72.6
69.5
68.5
Table 5: Comparison of clinical expert evaluation across four of seven reasoning steps (%). The best results in each column are highlighted in bold , and the second-best values are underlined .
Detection
Distribution
Location
Diagnosis
w/o Memory
73.7
69.6
63.2
65.5
w/o Text
81.5
76.1
69.3
72.1
Ours (Teacher)
91.8
84.6
77.1
78.3
Ours (Student)
91.8
83.4
76.9
77.5
Table 6: Comparison of memory ablation results across four of seven reasoning steps (%). The best results in each column are highlighted in bold , and the second-best values are underlined .
Figure 4: The feature attention visualization across multi-step reasoning demonstrates an evolution from broad attention in the initial query steps to highly targeted attention in the final diagnostic step, reflecting the multi-step capability of Step-CoT and visually verifying the effectiveness of the reasoning chain.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: This study collected a total of 16,782 CXR samples in PNG format from three datasets, containing 3,999, 8,788, and 3,995 samples, respectively. After filtering, 10,068 samples were retained, yielding 10,068*7 QA pairs for training the stepwise Med-VQA task.
Figure 6: Preprocessing pipeline of the Step-CoT dataset.
Category
Absolute Counts
Relative Distribution (%)
Train
Validation
Test
Train
Validation
Test
Diagnosis Categories
Normal
4,750
1,018
1,019
70.0
15.0
15.0
Nodule
595
127
129
69.9
14.9
15.2
Atelectasis
511
109
111
69.9
14.9
15.2
Infiltration
506
108
109
69.9
14.9
15.2
Appendix
Table 7: Dataset distribution analysis for Step-CoT.
Model
Step
Accuracy
AUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
F1-Score
Precision
VisualBERT
Detection step
75.0
71.0
13.5
93.5
33.1
34.0
Lesion distribution step
70.6
58.1
13.0
93.0
30.0
28.1
Radiographic pattern step
74.1
62.0
14.6
93.2
20.1
17.5
Anatomical location step
68.0
60.0
13.0
92.8
17.5
15.0
Morphologic feature step
84.0
58.5
13.5
93.1
33.0
32.1
Secondary effects/associated signs step
66.1
61.0
12.8
92.5
16.0
14.5
Appendix
Table 8: Stepwise benchmark results: Vision foundation models (%). The best value in each column is bold and the second best is underlined .
Model
Step
Accuracy
AUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
F1-Score
Precision
Teacher
Detection step
91.8
88.3
63.1
94.6
61.6
60.3
Lesion distribution step
84.6
89.7
51.4
93.8
49.8
61.7
Radiographic pattern step
84.8
90.2
45.0
96.5
43.6
53.2
Anatomical location step
77.1
89.5
45.7
95.3
44.9
57.7
Morphologic feature step
89.4
95.1
46.1
94.1
40.5
39.2
Secondary effects/associated signs step
79.7
86.4
41.4
95.3
40.0
41.4
Appendix
Table 9: Comprehensive performance comparison (per-step metrics) between Teacher, Student, and ablation variants (%). The best value in each column is bold and the second best is underlined .
Model
Step
Accuracy
Sensitivity
Specificity
F1-Score
Clinician
Detection step
72.1
36.8
82.7
37.9
Lesion distribution step
66.0
28.0
85.3
27.1
Radiographic pattern step
69.1
25.1
88.7
27.1
Anatomical location step
66.0
34.0
91.1
24.7
Morphologic feature step
66.1
21.3
85.3
19.0
Secondary effects/associated signs step
91.0
33.4
93.7
25.0
Appendix
Table 10: Clinical expert evaluation (%), per-step comparison between Clinicians, Teacher, and Student (N=200). The best value in each column is bold .
Model
Params
Inf_sample
Inf_batch
Memory_peak
CLIP
151.81 M
1.55 ms
6.20 ms
599.43 M
FLAVA
242.54 M
4.39 ms
17.57 ms
971.42 M
BLIP
225.25 M
1.46 ms
5.86 ms
904.27 M
VisualBERT
111.98 M
0.03 ms
0.12 ms
438.22 M
Teacher
283.66 M
22.81 ms
91.23 ms
1219.06 M
Student
151.56 M
1.51 ms
6.02 ms
1219.72 M
Appendix
Table 11: Computational Requirements Comparison (batchsize=4). Note: Bold = best (lowest); underline = 2nd best (2nd lowest).
Reasoning capabilities are crucial for reliable medical visual question answering (VQA); however, existing datasets rarely include reasoning explanations. We address this by generating reasoning trajectories for six medical VQA benchmarks using the COMCTS algorithm with open-source vision-language models, with an LLM serving as the verification judge. Building on these generated datasets, we propose a two-stage training framework: supervised fine-tuning followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a novel process-based reward. While standard approaches rely solely on exact-match rewards for final answers, we introduce a trajectory-aware reward that measures the similarity between generated and ground-truth reasoning processes. Specifically, we embed reasoning steps using sentence transformers and compute the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) distance between the resulting vector sequences. Experiments across six benchmarks demonstrate that combining the DTW-based process reward with exact-match reward consistently outperforms SFT-only training, raising mean accuracy from 0.598 to 0.689, mean BERTScore from 0.845 to 0.881, and mean ROUGE-L from 0.665 to 0.748. Our results highlight the importance of process supervision in training reasoning-capable medical VLMs. We make our code and generated reasoning datasets publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MICCAI-R1-MED-VQA-code-B14B/
Halil Ibrahim Gulluk, Olivier Gevaert
Electrical Engineering, Stanford University · Stanford Center For Biomedical Informatics Research
The reasoning gap between large and compact vision-language models (VLMs) limits the deployment of medical AI on portable clinical devices. Compact VLMs of 2--4B parameters can run on resource-constrained hardware but lack the multi-step reasoning capacity needed for interpretable clinical decision support. Existing knowledge distillation methods transfer answers without the reasoning process behind them. Medical visual question answering (VQA) serves as a testbed for this problem, as it requires models to integrate visual evidence with clinical knowledge through structured reasoning chains. We introduce LiteMedCoT-VL, a pipeline that transfers chain-of-thought reasoning from a 235B teacher model to 2B student models through LoRA-based fine-tuning on explanation-enriched training data. All inference is conducted without image captions by default, simulating the clinical scenario in which a physician interprets a medical image directly without an accompanying radiology report. On the PMC-VQA benchmark, LiteMedCoT-VL achieves 64.9% accuracy, exceeding the zero-shot Qwen3-VL-4B baseline of 53.9% by 11.0 percentage points and outperforming all published baselines. This result indicates that a 2B model with reasoning distillation can match or exceed models with twice the parameters. Visual grounding analysis shows that the model relies on image content rather than exploiting textual priors. Our code is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LiteMedCoT-VL.
Runze Ma, Shunbo Jia, Haonan Lyu +2
School of Information Technology Monash University Malaysia · Faculty of Innovation Engineering Macau University of Science and Technology · Department of Bioelectronics Faculty of Biomedical Engineering Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology +1
Large vision-language models (VLMs) often benefit from chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting in general domains, yet its efficacy in medical vision-language tasks remains underexplored. We report a counter-intuitive trend: on medical visual question answering, CoT frequently underperforms direct answering (DirA) across general-purpose and medical-specific models. We attribute this to a medical perception bottleneck: subtle, domain-specific cues can weaken visual grounding, and CoT may compound early perceptual uncertainty rather than correct it. To probe this hypothesis, we introduce two training-free, inference-time grounding interventions: (i) perception anchoring via region-of-interest cues and (ii) description grounding via high-quality textual guidance. Across multiple benchmarks and model families, these interventions improve accuracy, mitigate CoT degradation, and in several settings reverse the CoT--DirA inversion. Our findings suggest that reliable clinical VLMs require robust visual grounding and cross-modal alignment, beyond extending text-driven reasoning chains. Code is available here.
Yuan Wu, Zongxian Yang, Jiayu Qian +5
Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong (Dongguan) · College of Computing and Data Science (CCDS), Nanyang Technological University · School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University