How Do Medical MLLMs Fail? A Study on Visual Grounding in Medical Images

Vision language models (VLMs) have shown significant promise in visual grounding for images as well as videos. In medical imaging research, VLMs represent a bridge between object detection and segmentation, and report understanding and generation. However, spatial grounding of anatomical structures in the three-dimensional space of medical images poses many unique challenges. In this study, we examine image modalities, slice directions, and coordinate systems as differentiating factors for vision components of VLMs, and the use of anatomical, directional, and relational terminology as factors for the language components. We then demonstrate that visual and textual prompting systems such as labels, bounding boxes, and mask overlays have varying effects on the spatial grounding ability of VLMs. To enable measurement and reproducibility, we introduce MIS-Ground, a benchmark that comprehensively tests a VLM for vulnerabilities against specific modes of Medical Image Spatial Grounding. We release MIS-Ground to the public at github.com/asy51/mis-ground. In addition, we present MIS-SemSam, a low-cost, inference-time, and model-agnostic optimization of VLMs that improves their spatial grounding ability with the use of Semantic Sampling. We find that MIS-SemSam improves the accuracy of Qwen3-VL-32B on MIS-Ground by 13.06%.

Large vision language models (VLMs) report strong accuracy on medical question-answering, yet it remains unclear whether they reason from visual evidence or exploit textual shortcuts. We introduce a counterfactual evaluation framework that decouples visual and textual contributions by substituting input images with controlled surrogates blank, pixel-shuffled, image-absent, and CLIP-retrieved hard negatives and derive a suite of grounding metrics including the Visual Reliance Score (VRS) and Visual Hallucination Rate (VHR). We further introduce CORAL (COntrastive Retrieval-Augmented Learning), a 7B-parameter LoRA fine-tune of Qwen2.5-VL-7B trained with a Contrastive Grounding Objective (CGO) that penalises answer invariance under hard-negative image swaps. On a paired controlled evaluation across four closed-form medical VQA benchmarks (PathVQA, PMC-VQA, SLAKE, VQA-RAD; n=400 total), CORAL improves macro accuracy by +6.7 pp (P(Delta>0)=0.988) and reduces VHR by 8.0 pp (P<0.001) over the matched Qwen2.5-VL-7B base; neither MedVLThinker RL variant achieves a significant gain on either metric. Cross-domain diagnostics further reveal that image substitution costs only <=6.5 pp on medical benchmarks versus 48-61 pp on general-domain tasks, situating the grounding gap that CGO targets. We discuss evaluation limitations openly including train/eval benchmark overlap and underpowered secondary metrics and release our framework, training code, and model weights to support reproducible grounding audits of medical VLMs.

The rise of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) has sparked an unprecedented wave of applications in the field of medical imaging analysis. However, as one of the earliest and most fundamental tasks integrated into this paradigm, medical image classification reveals a sobering reality: state-of-the-art medical MLLMs consistently underperform compared to traditional deep learning models, despite their overwhelming advantages in pre-training data and model parameters. This paradox prompts a critical rethinking: where exactly does the performance degradation originate? In this paper, we conduct extensive experiments on 14 open-source medical MLLMs across three representative image classification datasets. Moving beyond superficial performance benchmarking, we employ feature probing to track the information flow of visual features module-by-module and layer-by-layer throughout the entire MLLM pipeline, enabling explicit visualization of where and how classification signals are distorted, diluted, or overridden. As the first attempt to dissect classification performance degradation in medical MLLMs, our findings reveal four failure modes: 1) quality limitation in visual representation, 2) fidelity loss in connector projection, 3) comprehension deficit in LLM reasoning, and 4) misalignment of semantic mapping. Meanwhile, we introduce quantitative scores that characterize the healthiness of feature evolution, enabling principled comparisons across diverse MLLMs and datasets. Furthermore, we provide insightful discussions centered on the critical barriers that prevent current medical MLLMs from fulfilling their promised clinical potential. We hope that our work provokes rethinking within the community-highlighting that the road from high expectations to clinically deployable MLLMs remains long and winding.