Representation geometry shapes task performance in vision-language modeling for CT enterography
Authors: Cristian Minoccheri, Emily Wittrup, Kayvan Najarian, Ryan Stidham
Organizations: Gilbert S. Omenn Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, 48104, MI, USA. · Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, 48104, MI, USA. · Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, 48104, MI, USA. · Department of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, 48104, MI, USA.
Computed tomography (CT) enterography is a primary imaging modality for assessing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet the representational choices that best support automated analysis of this modality are unknown. We present the first study of vision-language transfer learning on abdominal CT enterography and identify two main findings. First, mean pooling of slice embeddings gives better categorical disease assessment (59.2% three-class accuracy), whereas attention pooling gives better cross-modal retrieval (0.235 text-to-image MRR). This pattern holds across all LoRA configurations tested and suggests that the two aggregators emphasize different properties of the learned representation. Second, per-slice tissue contrast matters more than broader spatial coverage: multi-window RGB encoding, which maps complementary Hounsfield Unit windows to RGB channels, outperforms all strategies that increase spatial coverage through multiplanar sampling, and in this setting adding coronal and sagittal views reduces classification performance. For report generation, fine-tuning without retrieval context yields within-1 severity accuracy at the prevalence-matched chance level (70.4% vs.\ 71% random), suggesting little learned ordering beyond the class distribution. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves this across all configurations, scoring 7--14 percentage points above the chance baseline and improving ordinal MAE from 0.98 to 0.80--0.89. A three-teacher pseudolabel framework enables all comparisons without expert annotations. Together, these findings provide the first baselines for this underexplored modality and offer practical guidance for building vision-language systems for volumetric medical imaging.
Figures & tables
Configuration
Accuracy
Macro-F1
Multiwindow RGB
0.568
0.555
Axial baseline
0.538
0.523
Adjacent RGB
0.514
0.505
Axial + stratified sampling
0.506
0.489
Multiaxial
0.490
0.470
Multiaxial + stratified sampling
0.490
0.472
Table 1: Input-encoding and sampling ablations using mean pooling aggregation and v4b6_t4b6 LoRA configuration. Adjacent RGB maps consecutive slices to RGB; Multiwindow RGB maps HU windows to RGB; Axial uses single plane; Multiaxial uses axial, coronal, and sagittal planes. Random baseline: 33% accuracy, 0.33 macro-F1.
Configuration
Accuracy
Macro-F1
F1 (Normal)
F1 (Poss.)
F1 (Abn.)
Mean, v8b12_t8b6
0.592
0.580
0.541
0.545
0.655
Mean, v4b6_t4b6
0.568
0.555
0.514
0.515
0.636
Mean, v8b6_t4b6
0.536
0.523
0.480
0.478
0.611
Attn, v8b12_t8b6
0.552
0.541
0.521
0.486
0.617
Attn, v4b6_t4b6
0.560
0.550
0.526
0.508
0.617
Attn, v8b6_t4b6
0.536
0.519
0.480
0.448
0.630
Table 2: Three-class disease activity classification on the test set ( n=125 ). All models use multiwindow RGB encoding with multiplanar sampling. Aggregator: Mean = mean pooling, Attn = attention pooling, Lite = lightweight transformer. LoRA: vXbY_tZbW = vision rank X over Y blocks, text rank Z over W blocks. Random baseline: 33% accuracy, 0.33 macro-F1.
Image-to-Text (I2T)
Text-to-Image (T2I)
Configuration
R@1
R@5
R@10
MRR
R@1
R@5
R@10
MRR
Mean, v8b6_t4b6
0.088
0.136
0.232
0.140
0.160
0.264
0.400
0.231
Mean, v8b12_t8b6
0.064
0.176
0.256
0.132
0.064
0.296
0.392
0.166
Mean, v4b6_t4b6
0.064
0.168
0.240
0.135
0.152
0.304
0.360
0.228
Attn, v4b6_t4b6
0.088
0.160
0.248
0.146
0.160
0.304
0.400
0.235
Attn, v8b6_t4b6
0.088
0.168
0.216
0.142
0.064
0.280
0.392
0.169
Table 3: Cross-modal retrieval performance on the test set ( n=125 ). All models use multiwindow RGB encoding with multiplanar sampling. Aggregator: Mean = mean pooling, Attn = attention pooling, Lite = lightweight transformer. LoRA: vXbY_tZbW = vision rank X over Y blocks, text rank Z over W blocks. I2T = image-to-text, T2I = text-to-image. Random baseline: R@1=0.008, R@5=0.04, R@10=0.08.
Model
ROUGE-L
METEOR
BLEU
BERTScore
MedGemma (SFT)
0.126
0.173
6.28
0.826
RAG with CT-CLIP retrieval ( k=5 ):
Mean, v4b3_t4b3
0.121
0.216
1.46
0.828
Mean, v4b6_t4b6
0.122
0.214
1.45
0.830
Attn, v4b3_t4b3
0.119
0.215
1.43
0.828
Attn, v4b6_t4b6
0.124
0.218
1.42
0.828
Table 4: Report generation evaluation on the test set ( n=125 ). RAG models use lighter LoRA configurations than classification models, as generation quality depends primarily on retrieval context. Aggregator: Mean = mean pooling, Attn = attention pooling, Lite = lightweight transformer. LoRA: vXbY_tZbW = vision rank X over Y blocks, text rank Z over W blocks. BLEU is sentence-level SacreBLEU (0–100 scale).
Model
Accuracy
Macro-F1
Ord. MAE
Within-1
Mean, v4b3_t4b3
0.360
0.340
0.82
0.816
Mean, v4b6_t4b6
0.336
0.337
0.86
0.808
Attn, v4b3_t4b3
0.376
0.361
0.80
0.824
Attn, v4b6_t4b6
0.336
0.325
0.82
0.848
Lite, v4b6_t4b6
0.360
0.351
0.80
0.840
Lite, v4b3_t4b3
0.328
0.306
0.89
0.784
Table 5: Label consistency evaluation: accuracy of disease activity labels extracted from generated impressions compared to ground-truth consensus labels. Models match those in Table 4 . Ordinal metrics treat labels as ordered (normal < possibly abnormal < abnormal). Random baselines: 33% exact accuracy; 71% within-1 (prevalence-matched), 74% within-1 (uniform).