Noise-Aware Visual Representation Learning for Medical Visual Question Answering

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.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) facilitate medical visual question answering (MedVQA) by jointly interpreting images and text. However, existing models typically depend on large architectures and closed-set answers, which limits their efficiency and potential clinical applicability. To overcome these shortcomings, we introduce RoiMAM, an efficient VLM. It integrates a training-free ROI Generation Module with Semantic Selective Suppression to focus on lesion-relevant regions, alongside a Text Prompt Enhancer module that provides modality-specific context without introducing training parameters. Compared to the widely used MedVInT-TD model, our design achieves efficient and accurate diagnosis at less than 20% of the model size, while improving accuracy by approximately 2% on SLAKE and 4.6% on PMC-VQA.

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer \emph{semantics} rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0% to 57.5% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number $k$ of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5%) at both $k=0$ and the adapter's training-time $k=1$, 188/200 (94.0%) at the packaged runtime's default $k=3$ --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of $k=3$, selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~\cite{zhao2024ratescore} decrease as $k$ grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant ($p \ge 0.29$); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).