DiffVP: Differential Visual Semantic Prompting for LLM-Based CT Report Generation
Authors: Yuhe Tian, Kun Zhang, Haoran Ma, Rui Yan, Yingtai Li, Rongsheng Wang, Shaohua Kevin Zhou
Organizations: Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science, School of Information Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230026, China · Center for Medical Imaging, Robotics, Analytic Computing & Learning (MIRACLE), Suzhou Institute for Advanced Research, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Suzhou, Jiangsu 215123, China · Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Multimodal Digital Twin Technology, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Suzhou, Jiangsu 215123, China · School of Biomedical Engineering, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230026, China · State Key Laboratory of Precision and Intelligent Chemistry, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230026, China
While large language models (LLMs) have advanced CT report generation, existing methods typically encode 3D volumes holistically, failing to distinguish informative cues from redundant anatomical background. Inspired by radiological cognitive subtraction, we propose Differential Visual Prompting (DiffVP), which conditions report generation on explicit, high-level semantic scan-to-reference differences rather than solely on absolute visual features. DiffVP employs a hierarchical difference extractor to capture complementary global and local semantic discrepancies into a shared latent space, along with a difference-to-prompt generator that transforms these signals into learnable visual prefix tokens for LLM conditioning. These difference prompts serve as structured conditioning signals that implicitly suppress invariant anatomy while amplifying diagnostically relevant visual evidence, thereby facilitating accurate report generation without explicit lesion localization. On two large-scale benchmarks, DiffVP consistently outperforms prior methods, improving the average BLEU-1-4 by +10.98 and +4.36, respectively, and further boosts clinical efficacy on RadGenome-ChestCT (F1 score 0.421). All codes will be released at https://github.com/ArielTYH/DiffVP/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of conventional methods and our proposed framework. (a) Previous methods feed whole-volume visual tokens uniformly into an LLM for report generation. (b) In clinical practice, radiologists often compare the current scan image with a normal reference image to identify differences. (c) Inspired by this, our method leverages a normal reference prior to derive deviation-aware visual prompts, guiding the LLM to generate more accurate and fine-grained reports.
Figure 2: Overall architecture. The framework takes a target CT volume and a normal reference CT as inputs. A shared visual encoder and resampler produce aligned latent tokens ( I and Ir ). A difference-aware module then derives (a) a global delta Δglobal by applying a Transformer with a learnable query over I and Ir , and (b) a local delta Δlocal by aggregating token-wise residuals with distance-based importance weights. These two signals are fused by (c) a difference-to-prompt generator to form a visual difference prompt, which is prepended as a soft prefix to an LLM (LoRA-tuned) to guide medical report generation.
Dataset
Method
Year
BL-1
BL-2
BL-3
BL-4
RG-L
MTR
RadGenome- ChestCT
† RadFM
2023
44.20
34.49
28.06
23.65
31.53
39.94
† M3D
2023
43.57
34.48
28.54
24.49
32.61
39.95
R2GenGPT
2023
43.28
34.11
28.16
24.16
32.26
39.85
MedVInT
2024
44.28
34.91
28.75
24.60
32.58
40.39
CT2Rep
2024
44.42
34.43
27.94
23.56
30.99
40.16
Reg2RG
2025
47.25
36.49
29.57
24.87
36.65
44.07
Table 1: Quantitative results on RadGenome-ChestCT and CTRG-Chest-548K. Models marked with † are foundation models. We report BLEU (BL), ROUGE-L (RG-L), and METEOR (MTR) scores. The best, second best, and third best results are highlighted in dark blue, medium blue, and light blue, respectively.
Table 4
ID
Module Settings
NLG Metrics
CE Metrics
Δglobal
Δlocal
E
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
M
R-1
R-2
R-L
Pre.
Rec.
F1
Baseline
55.29
46.55
39.36
33.17
44.11
62.12
41.95
31.94
0.295
0.109
0.159
#1
✓
55.62
46.89
39.65
33.44
44.80
62.31
42.19
32.35
0.311
0.217
0.256
#2
✓
✓
57.46
47.92
39.97
33.20
46.63
62.97
41.69
32.08
0.373
0.459
0.411
#3
✓
✓
57.68
48.24
40.47
33.89
47.67
63.19
42.25
32.76
0.360
0.464
0.406
Ours
✓
✓
✓
58.16
48.74
40.93
34.28
47.40
63.52
42.63
32.32
0.366
0.496
0.421
Table 4: Ablation study on the effectiveness of different modules on RadGenome-ChestCT. Global , Local , and E denote the Global Delta, Local Delta, and Classification Prompt modules, respectively. CE Metrics denote clinical efficacy metrics including Precision, Recall, and F1.
Figure 6
Figure 5: Visual semantic discrepancy and discrepancy-level comparison. (a) Two examples showing the input CT, the Visual Semantic Difference Map produced by our method, and the paired normal reference. (b) Performance comparison among w/o Diff , Pixel-level Diff (pixel-wise subtraction), and Ours on BLEU-1 and CE-F1.
Figure 6: Qualitative case study comparing the Ground Truth, the Comparison Method, the ablation variant without the Δprompt , and the full model. Correctly identified pathologies are highlighted in blue and missed detections are marked with crosses .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Normal Reference Report
Dataset
Reference Content
RadGenome
Thoracic CT examination within normal limits. Findings within normal limits. No obvious pathology was observed in thorax CT examination. Findings within normal limits
CTRG-548K
Thorax is symmetrical. lung window shows clear lung markings. natural walking. good lung field transparency. no obvious consolidation shadow. and bilateral pulmonary hili are not large. The shape of heart shadow and heart big vessels is normal. and no obvious mass or enlarged lymph node is found in mediastinum. No pleural effusion or pleural thickening. Thorax is symmetrical. lung window shows clear lung markings. natural walking. good lung field transparency. no obvious consolidation shadow. and bilateral pulmonary hili are not large. The shape of heart shadow and heart big vessels is normal. and no obvious mass or enlarged lymph node is found in mediastinum. No pleural effusion or pleural thickening.
Appendix
Figure 7: Examples of normal references from the constructed pool. These reports describe standard physiological states without pathological findings.
Method
B1
B4
MTR
RG-L
F1
Recall
Precision
Baseline (Seed 21)
47.25
24.87
44.07
36.65
0.253
0.180
0.423
Baseline (Seed 22)
47.43
25.02
44.06
36.67
0.250
0.178
0.417
Baseline (Seed 23)
47.63
25.27
44.38
36.98
0.248
0.178
0.412
Baseline (Seed 24)
47.41
25.09
44.18
37.62
0.260
0.186
0.430
Baseline (Seed 25)
47.30
24.84
43.99
36.53
0.259
0.186
0.427
Ours (Seed 21)
58.01
35.82
50.76
39.48
0.398
0.440
0.362
Appendix
Table 5: Quantitative results and stability analysis on the test set. We report results across five random seeds for both Baseline and Ours, together with mean ± std and two-sided t -test p -values (Ours vs. Baseline). Metric scores are reported in percentage (%).
Setting
BL-1
BL-4
MTR
RG-L
F1
Recall
Precision
Baseline (w/o Δ , w/o E )
55.29
33.17
44.11
31.94
0.159
0.109
0.295
+Δglobal (w/o E )
56.83
37.24
50.09
42.50
0.188
0.124
0.383
+Δglobal+Δlocal (w/o E )
57.23
33.99
46.67
32.83
0.238
0.175
0.374
+Δglobal+Δlocal+E (Ours)
58.16
34.28
47.40
32.32
0.421
0.496
0.366
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study without the diagnostic anchor E on RadGenome-ChestCT.
Judge Prompt (GPT-5)
You are a Senior Radiologist Consultant. You must compare Report A vs Report B against the Ground Truth (GT) on FIVE dimensions. IMPORTANT: You are NOT allowed to output ”Tie” in any dimension. You must choose either ”Report A” or ”Report B” for every winner field. This forced-choice design is required to compute consistent win-rate statistics. Focus strictly on what is written in the reports. Do not assume extra findings beyond GT. When judging ”detail_richness”, richness should NOT reward fabricated or unsupported facts. Prefer clinically plausible elaboration only if it remains consistent with the GT. Penalize clearly invented or contradictory details. Dimension 1: finding_coverage Question: Which report captured more GT POSITIVE findings (missed fewer true abnormalities)? How to judge: • Identify GT positive abnormalities and check which report mentions them correctly. • Missing a major GT abnormality is heavily penalized. Winner: the report that misses fewer true positives. Dimension 2: clinical_actionability Question: Which report is more clinically actionable while staying faithful to GT? How to judge: • Clear key impression / prioritization of important findings. • Less irrelevant clutter; avoids burying key abnormalities. • No major contradictions with GT. Winner: the report that is more useful for clinical decision-making. Dimension 3: detail_richness Question: Which report provides richer clinically-relevant detail while remaining faithful to GT? How to judge: • More descriptive radiology language, qualifiers, and contextual details. • Avoid empty generic statements. • Prefer plausible and GT-consistent details. • Penalize unsupported measurements, invented facts, or contradictions. Winner: the report with richer and informative yet GT-consistent descriptions. Dimension 4: anatomical_specificity Question: Which report uses more specific anatomical localization? How to judge: • Laterality (left/right), lobes/segments, sub-regions, organ parts. • Concrete localization beats vague phrases. Winner: the report with finer anatomical grounding. Dimension 5: quantification_detail Question: Which report includes more quantification and measurable descriptors? How to judge: • Measurements (mm/cm), counts (multiple/few), severity (mild/moderate/severe), intervals. Winner: the report with more quantification. Output format (MUST be a strict JSON object, no markdown, no extra text): { "finding_coverage_winner": "Report A" or "Report B", "clinical_actionability_winner": "Report A" or "Report B", "detail_richness_winner": "Report A" or "Report B", "anatomical_specificity_winner": "Report A" or "Report B", "quantification_detail_winner": "Report A" or "Report B", "evidence": { "GT_key_findings": ["<=5 short phrases summarizing the GT positives, if any; if GT is fully normal, write [’normal’]"], "ReportA_supporting_spans": ["2-4 short verbatim spans copied from Report A that support your decisions"], "ReportB_supporting_spans": ["2-4 short verbatim spans copied from Report B that support your decisions"] }, "reason": "1-3 sentences summarizing why the winners were chosen across the five dimensions." }
Appendix
Figure 8: Complete prompt used for LLM-as-judge evaluation (GPT-5, temperature =0 ).
Pool Size
B1
B4
M
RL
F1
Recall
Prec
1
58.20
35.82
50.71
39.38
0.403
0.451
0.365
10
58.33
36.07
50.83
39.50
0.406
0.451
0.370
40
58.40
36.31
50.92
39.74
0.414
0.458
0.379
60
58.25
35.89
50.66
39.47
0.403
0.450
0.365
124
58.08
35.73
50.55
39.38
0.398
0.445
0.360
Appendix
Table 7: Effect of normal reference pool size on RadGenome-ChestCT.
Setting
B1
B4
M
RL
F1
Recall
Prec
Baseline (No Δ )
55.29
33.17
44.11
31.94
0.159
0.109
0.295
Ours (In-domain Δ )
58.16
34.28
47.40
32.32
0.421
0.496
0.366
Ours (100% CTRG Δ )
56.53
34.95
48.03
36.50
0.128
0.082
0.289
Appendix
Table 8: In-domain vs. domain-shift comparison on RadGenome-ChestCT.
CTRG Mix Ratio
B1
B4
M
RL
F1
Recall
Prec
10%
56.73
35.05
48.17
36.66
0.130
0.083
0.299
50%
56.91
35.45
48.47
36.82
0.128
0.082
0.292
100%
56.53
34.95
48.03
36.50
0.128
0.082
0.289
Appendix
Table 9: Domain shift with different CTRG mixing ratios.
Abnormal Ratio
B1
B4
M
RL
F1
Recall
Prec
10%
57.03
36.51
48.41
36.34
0.166
0.118
0.282
50%
56.91
35.45
48.47
36.82
0.128
0.082
0.292
0% (ours)
58.16
34.28
47.40
32.32
0.421
0.496
0.366
Appendix
Table 10: Imperfect normal pool with mixed abnormal samples.
Automated radiology report generation from 3D computed tomography (CT) volumes is challenging due to extreme sequence lengths, severe class imbalance, and the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to ignore visual tokens in favor of linguistic priors. We present Ker-VLJEPA-3B, a four-phase curriculum learning framework for free-text report generation from thoracic CT volumes. A phased training curriculum progressively adapts a Llama 3.2 3B decoder to ground its output in visual features from a frozen, self-supervised encoder. Our visual backbone (LeJEPA ViT-Large) is trained via self-supervised joint-embedding prediction on unlabeled CTs, without text supervision. Unlike contrastive models (CLIP, BiomedCLIP), this language-free backbone yields modality-pure representations. Vision-language alignment is deferred to the curriculum's bridge and generation phases. This modality-agnostic design can integrate any self-supervised encoder into an LLM without paired text during foundation training. Methodological innovations include: (1) zone-constrained cross-attention compressing slice embeddings into 32 spatially-grounded visual tokens; (2) PCA whitening of anisotropic LLM embeddings; (3) a positive-findings-only strategy eliminating posterior collapse; (4) warm bridge initialization transferring projection weights; and (5) selective cross-attention freezing with elastic weight consolidation to prevent catastrophic forgetting. Evaluated on the CT-RATE benchmark (2,984 validation volumes, 18 classes), Ker-VLJEPA-3B achieves a macro F1 of 0.429, surpassing the state-of-the-art (U-VLM, macro F1 = 0.414) by 3.6%, and reaching 0.448 (+8.2%) with threshold optimization. Ablation studies confirm 56.6% of generation quality derives from patient-specific visual content. Code and weights are available.
V. K. Cody Bumgardner, Mitchell A. Klusty, Mahmut S. Gokmen +1
Center for Applied Artificial Intelligence, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 USA
Vision--language models (VLMs) for radiology report generation (RRG) can produce long-form chest CT reports from volumetric scans and show strong potential to improve radiology workflow efficiency and consistency. However, existing methods face two key limitations: (i) training supervision is often coarse, aligning a whole CT volume with a full free-text report without explicit alignment for fine-grained attributes or pathology locations; and (ii) evaluation is typically holistic (lexical overlap, entity matching, or LLM-as-a-judge scores) and not diagnostic for spatial grounding. We propose Discriminative Cue-Prompting with Prompt Dropout (DCP-PD), a plug-and-play framework that distills fine-grained cues from free-text reports and uses them to guide report generation while mitigating shortcut reliance via prompt dropout. DCP-PD achieves state-of-the-art performance on CT-RATE, improving macro F1 from =0.501 to 0.603 (20% relative), and substantially boosts out-of-distribution performance on Rad-ChestCT from F1 =0.266 to 0.503 (89% relative). Finally, we introduce a hierarchical, location-aware question-set protocol (presence → laterality → lobe) to directly assess pathology-location grounding, showing that fine-grained spatial localization remains challenging even for models that score highly on current benchmarks.
Chenyu Wang, Weicheng Dai, Han Liu +2
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA · Siemens Healthineers, Princeton, NJ, USA
Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown potential for automated radiology report generation, yet existing approaches rely on global embedding compression of volumetric data, often leading to hallucinated findings and limited anatomical grounding in 3D CT imaging. We introduce MedScribe, a hypothesis-driven framework that reformulates report generation as an iterative evidence acquisition process rather than a single-pass encoding task. MedScribe models reporting as a sequential decision process in which a large language model dynamically invokes pathology-specific diagnostic tools to extract localized volumetric features. These structured features are used to query a multidimensional retrieval space aligned with pathology-specific textual evidence. By explicitly accumulating quantitative evidence prior to synthesis, the framework enforces fine-grained grounding and reduces unsupported claims. Without task-specific fine-tuning, MedScribe improves clinical accuracy, factual consistency, and interpretability on CT-RATE and RadChestCT compared to state-of-the-art 2D and 3D VLMs, demonstrating the value of hypothesis-driven reasoning for reliable medical image reporting.
Giuseppe A. Orlando, Paolo Papotti, Maria A. Zuluaga +2
Inria Centre at Université Côte d’Azur Sophia Antipolis, France · EURECOM Biot, France · Dep. of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Antoine Lacassagne Nice, France Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Inserm, iBV