We introduce MedGemma 1.5 4B, the latest model in the MedGemma collection. MedGemma 1.5 expands on MedGemma 1 by integrating additional capabilities: high-dimensional medical imaging (CT/MRI volumes and histopathology whole slide images), anatomical localization via bounding boxes, multi-timepoint chest X-ray analysis, and improved medical document understanding (lab reports, electronic health records). We detail the innovations required to enable these modalities within a single architecture, including new training data, long-context 3D volume slicing, and whole-slide pathology sampling. Compared to MedGemma 1 4B, MedGemma 1.5 4B demonstrates significant gains in these new areas, improving 3D MRI condition classification accuracy by 11% and 3D CT condition classification by 3% (absolute improvements). In whole slide pathology imaging, MedGemma 1.5 4B achieves a 47% macro F1 gain. Additionally, it improves anatomical localization with a 35% increase in Intersection over Union on chest X-rays and achieves a 4% macro accuracy for longitudinal (multi-timepoint) chest x-ray analysis. Beyond its improved multimodal performance over MedGemma 1, MedGemma 1.5 improves on text-based clinical knowledge and reasoning, improving by 5% on MedQA accuracy and 22% on EHRQA accuracy. It also achieves an average of 18% macro F1 on 4 different lab report information extraction datasets (EHR Datasets 2, 3, 4, and Mendeley Clinical Laboratory Test Reports). Taken together, MedGemma 1.5 serves as a robust, open resource for the community, designed as an improved foundation on which developers can create the next generation of medical AI systems. Resources and tutorials for building upon MedGemma 1.5 can be found at https://goo.gle/medgemma.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of model capabilities within the MedGemma collection. The updated MedGemma 1.5 4B architecture now supports 3D radiology (CT/MRI volumes), pathology whole slide imaging (WSI), anatomical localization, and multi-timepoint analysis. The original MedGemma 27B model remains available for complex clinical knowledge and reasoning tasks and MedSigLIP remains available for medical image classification and retrieval tasks.
Figure 2: The left panel details accuracy on medical text Q&A tasks (MedQA and EHRQA), while the right panel highlights performance across diverse medical imaging capabilities. Notably, the "medical image interpretation" score represents an unweighted macro average of the model’s performance across 7 distinct imaging tasks including MIMIC-CXR (both RadGraph F1 and report generation macro F1), CheXpert (unweighted average across 5 conditions), CXR 14 (unweighted average across 3 conditions), Path MCQA, DermMCQA, and EyePACS. "Lab report extraction" is macro-averaged over results from EHR dataset 2, 3 and 4 as well as Mendeley Clinical Laboratory Test Reports (macro F1). All scores are reported as percentages. While the out-of-the-box performance is highly promising, the model is not meant to be deployed without the necessary clinical fine-tuning. Fine-tuning may improve results and adapt the framework for practical use.
Modality
Dataset
No. Train Examples
Training stages
Description
Radiology
CXR-IND1
605,732
PT, Distill, RL
Dataset of chest X-ray images and free text reports from a large hospital system based in India
CT Dataset 1
282,963
PT, Distill, RL
Dataset of different axial CT studies across body parts (head, chest, abdomen) from a US-based radiology outpatient diagnostic center network.
MRI Dataset 1
167,674
PT, Distill, RL
Dataset of different axial multi-parametric MRI studies across body parts (head, abdomen, knee) from a US-based radiology outpatient diagnostic center network.
Chest ImaGenome ( Wu et al., 2021 )
39,968
RL
Dataset of chest X-ray with sequential images and bounding boxes from IBM Research.
Pathology Whole Slide Imaging
Internal WSI Histopathology
335,825
PT, RL
WSIs with paired final diagnosis text reports. WSIs were tiled into individual patches and aggregated for input as described in the Methods.
Dermatology
Dermatology Dataset 4
25,560
PT, Distill
Dermatology dataset featuring multiple images and longitudinal visits and records from Japan.
Table 1: Additional training data for MedGemma 4B 1.5 relative to MedGemma 1
Task
Dataset
Modality
No. Eval. Examples
OOD †
Public *
Medical text QA
EHRNoteQA ( Kweon et al., 2024 )
Text
962
✓
✓
CXR temporal analysis
MS-CXR-T ( Bannur et al., 2023b )
Radiology longitudinal
1326
-
✓
3D CT classification
CT Dataset 1
Radiology CT (Volumes)
1229
-
-
CT-RATE ( Hamamci et al., 2024 )
Radiology CT (Volumes)
1558
✓
✓
CXR Finding localization
Chest ImaGenome ( Wu et al., 2021 )
Radiology localization
10000
-
✓
Pathology WSI to text
WSI Histopath
Pathology WSIs
9614
-
-
Table 2: Additional evaluation datasets for MedGemma 1.5
Small Models
Large Models
Task
Metric
MedGemma 1 4B
MedGemma 1.5 4B
MedGemma 1 27B
Qwen3 VL 4B
Gemini 3 Flash
Gemini 3 Pro
Text evaluation
MedQA (4-op) ( Jin et al., 2021 )
Accuracy
64.4
69.1
85.3
76.8
94.3
95.1
MedMCQA ( Pal et al., 2022 )
Accuracy
55.7
59.8
70.2
63.7
85.2
86.1
PubMedQA ( Jin et al., 2019 )
Accuracy
73.4
67.6
77.2
74.8
80.8
82.2
MMLU Med ( Hendrycks et al., 2020 )
Accuracy
70.0
69.7
86.2
78.3
87.5
88.1
Table 3: MedGemma 1.5 performance for original MedGemma 1 evaluation tasks We bolded best performing small models and large models separately.
Small Models
Large Models
Task
Metric
MedGemma 1 4B
MedGemma 1.5 4B
MedGemma 1 27B
Qwen3 VL 4B
Gemma 3 4B
Gemma 3 27B
Gemini 3.0 Flash
Gemini 3.0 Pro
External SOTA
Text Only
EHRNoteQA
Accuracy
79.4
80.4
90.7
90.6
78.0
90.3
93.9
95.0
95.15-97.16 (1)
Document Understanding
EHR Dataset 2
Macro F1
78
91
76
-
84
93
92
93
-
EHR Dataset 3
Macro F1
50
71
66
-
61
74
74
90
-
Table 4: New Evaluation Task Results
Figure 3: Overview of MedGemma 1.5 capabilities. The updated 4B architecture now supports 3D radiology (CT/MRI volumes).
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
Metric
MedGemma 1 4B
MedGemma 1.5 4B
Gemini 3.0 Flash
CT-RATE ∗ (3D CT)
Macro F1
23.5
26.9
8.5
Appendix
Table 5: CT Rate Results
Type
Benchmark
MedGemma 1 4B
MedGemma 1.5 4B
Gemma 3 4B §
MedGemma 1 27B
Gemma 3 27B §
Text-only
MMLU Pro
39.1
33.8
43.6
60.2
67.5
Appendix
Table 6: Accuracy results on general, non-medical benchmarks.
Task
Prompt Template / Suffix
MedQA
{{ question }}\nYou may write out your argument before stating your final, very short, definitive, and concise answer (no more than a few words or the letter corresponding to your answer choice if the question is multiple choice) X in the format "Final Answer: X":
PubMedQA
MedMCQA
MMLU
MedXpertQA (Text)
AfriMed
Appendix
Table 7: Updated Prompts (Version 1.5) for General Medical Text Evaluation Tasks
Task
Prompt Template
MIMIC-CXR
{{ image }} + {{ question }} You MUST end your responce with either "Final Answer: yes" or "Final Answer: no
CheXpert
CXR14
Appendix
Table 8: Updated Prompts (Version 1.5) for Multimodal Binarized MCQ Evaluation Tasks. These tasks involve binary classification (Yes/No) and use a strict format constraint in Version 1.5.
Task
Prompt Template
SlakeVQA
{{image }} + {{ question }} You may write out your argument before stating your final, very short, definitive, and concise answer X (no more than a few words or the letter corresponding to your answer choice if the question is multiple choice) in the format "Final Answer: X":
VQA-Rad
{{image }} + {{ question }} You may write out your argument before stating your final, very short, definitive, and concise answer X (no more than a few words or the letter corresponding to your answer choice if the question is multiple choice) in the format "Final Answer: X":
Pathology WSI
{{images }} + Provide a brief diagnostic text for the set of pathology patches extracted from a pathology slide. Consider the tissue type and procedure (below) when deciding what to include in the diagnostic text. {{ type_procedure }} {{ question }}
DermMCQA
{{image }} + {{ question }} You must choose the most likely diagnosis and respond with "The most likely diagnosis is:" followed by your choice letter.
EyePACS
{{image }} + Given this fundus image, determine the most likely diabetic retinopathy (DR) stage present, even if you are unsure: A: No DR B: mild DR C: moderate DR D: severe DR E: proliferative DR You must choose the most likely diagnosis and respond with "The most likely diagnosis is:" followed by your choice letter.
Appendix
Table 9: Updated Prompts (Version 1.5) for Visual Evaluation Tasks. These tasks cover general visual question answering and specific diagnostic classification.
Task
Prompt Template
EHRNoteQA
BEGIN_INSTRUCTIONS Given the following discharge note for a patient, answer the question by only picking one of the A, B, C, D, E options. Each discharge note starts with "DISCHARGE ?:", the question starts with "QUESTION:" and the choices with "CHOICE_?:" where ? is a single character. To answer, describe your thought process for each choice; finish your answer with "Final Answer: (?)" where ? is a single character indicating the correct choice. END_INSTRUCTIONS {discharge_note} QUESTION: {orig_question} the choices are: CHOICE_A: {choice_A} CHOICE_B: {choice_B} CHOICE_C: {choice_C} CHOICE_D: {choice_D} CHOICE_E: {choice_E} Describe your thought process for each choice and end your answer with "Final Answer: (?)" where ? is a single character indicating the correct answer. Use this exact format at the end "Final Answer: (?)".
Appendix
Table 10: Prompt (Version 1.5) for EHRNoteQA
Task
Prompt Template
EHR Dataset 2
You are a Clinical Data Extraction Specialist. Your job is to parse lab reports with high precision. From the given lab report, extract all lab tests into a JSON list. Each test object in the list must include: name, result, unit, range, panel, method, specimen, sample_collection_time (formatted as DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM:SS)
EHR Dataset 3
EHR Dataset 4
Mendeley Clinical Laboratory Test Reports
Appendix
Table 11: Prompt (Version 1.5) for Document Understanding PNG/PDF images to JSON
Task
Prompt Template
Chest ImaGenome (Localization)
{{image }} + Where is the {object}?
Appendix
Table 12: Prompt (Version 1.5) for Anatomy Localization Tasks
Task
Prompt Template
CT-US1
{{images }} + After looking at the indication and patient history "{HISTORY}"... Is there "{Label}" in the CT volume? You may write out your argument before stating your final answer "Final Answer: yes" or "Final Answer: no".
MRI-US1
{{images }} + ’After looking at the patient history "history_text", Is there {{label}} in the MRI volume? You may write out your argument before stating your final answer ""Final Answer: yes"" or ""Final Answer: no""
CT-RATE
{{images }} + You are an expert radiologist for chest CT. Looking at these CT slices, is there Emphysema? Answer with ’Final Answer: yes’ or ’Final Answer: no’
Appendix
Table 13: Prompt (Version 1.5) for 3D CT Volumetric Analysis
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) answer binary clinical questions with a yes or no token, leaving the decision threshold implicit and fixed. We derive a continuous score from a single forward pass by renormalizing the probabilities of the yes and no tokens, allowing the threshold to be adapted to clinical needs without retraining. We evaluated this approach with MedGemma and Gemma-3 (4B and 27B) on six medical imaging datasets. The default threshold was frequently misaligned with the task: for identifying normal chest radiographs, MedGemma-27B labeled every image as abnormal, whereas a validation-selected threshold yielded a sensitivity of 0.945 and a specificity of 0.696. Normalization achieved the highest AUROC on four of six datasets (CheXpert: 0.819 vs. 0.777 for raw and 0.743 for text-elicited probabilities), and a single decision required 53-79 ms on one GPU. This simple post-hoc method turns medical MLLMs into fast classifiers with adjustable operating points. Code: https://github.com/TruhnLab/llm-threshold-calibration
Patrick Wienholt, Frederik Hauke, Christiane Kuhl +3
Lab for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. +2
Multi-modal medical imaging enables comprehensive diagnostics, yet current foundation models process 2D (e.g. X-ray) and 3D (e.g. CT) data with separate, dimensionality-specific architectures. We present MultiMedVision, a unified framework for joint 2D/3D representation learning built on a Sparse Vision Transformer. Our model uses 3D Rotary Positional Embeddings and variable-length sequence packing to process mixed-modality batches natively within a shared latent space, without modality-specific adapters or treating 3D volumes as 2D slice sequences. Trained with a self-supervised objective on chest X-rays (MIMIC-CXR) and CT scans (CT-RATE), and using a single shared encoder with 5x less data, MultiMedVision achieves competitive performance on both 2D benchmarks (Macro AUROC 0.82 on MIMIC, 0.84 on CheXpert) and 3D tasks (0.85 on CT-RATE). Analysis of the learned representations reveals coexisting modality-specific and shared feature subspaces, demonstrating that unified cross-dimensional representation learning is feasible without sacrificing modality-specific performance.
Frank Li, Bardia Khosravi, Mohammadreza Chavoshi +5
Large language models perform well on many medical QA benchmarks, but real clinical reasoning often requires integrating evidence across multiple images rather than interpreting a single view. We introduce MedThinkVQA, an expert-annotated benchmark for thinking with multiple images, where models must interpret each image, combine cross-view evidence, and answer diagnostic questions with intermediate supervision and step-level evaluation. The dataset contains 8,067 cases, including 720 test cases, with an average of 6.62 images per case, substantially denser than prior work, whose expert-level benchmarks use at most 1.43 images per case. On the test set, the best closed-source models, Claude-4.6-Opus, Gemini-3-Pro, and GPT-5.2-xhigh, reach only 57.2%, 55.3%, and 54.9% accuracy, while GPT-5-mini and GPT-5-nano reach 39.7% and 30.8%. Strong open-source models lag behind, led by Qwen3.5-397B-A17B at 52.2% and Qwen3.5-27B at 50.6%. Further analysis identifies grounded multi-image reasoning as the main bottleneck: models often fail to extract, align, and compose evidence across views before higher-level inference can help. Providing expert single-image cues and cross-image summaries improves performance, whereas replacing them with self-generated intermediates reduces accuracy. Step-level analysis shows that over 70% of errors arise from image reading and cross-view integration. Scaling results further show that additional inference-time computation helps only when visual grounding is already reliable; when early evidence extraction is weak, longer reasoning yields limited or unstable gains and can amplify misread cues. These results suggest that the key challenge is not reasoning length alone, but reliable mechanisms for grounding, aligning, and composing distributed evidence across real-world multimodal clinical inputs.
Zonghai Yao, Benlu Wang, Yifan Zhang +8
Manning College of Information and Computer Sciences, UMass Amherst · Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Health Care · Department of Computer Science, Yale University +2