When is 3D Worth It? A Resource-Performance Frontier for CNNs and Transformers in Lung CT

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.

Vision-language models offer a promising path toward automating radiology report generation, but applying them to full 3D CT volumes poses substantial computational challenges. Modern foundation vision encoders (VEs) can produce tens of thousands of vision tokens per scan, making the visual sequence passed to the large language model (LLM) a primary computational bottleneck. Vision-to-language projectors can compress this sequence to reduce computation, but may discard clinically relevant detail; conversely, effective compression can accommodate higher-resolution inputs while keeping the downstream token count fixed. How this vision-token budget should be allocated across input field of view, spatial resolution, and vision-to-language projection therefore remains an open design question. We systematically evaluate four heterogeneous VEs (CNN- and ViT-based), five token-reducing projectors at up to 64x compression alongside a non-reducing MLP projector baseline, and five instruction-tuned LLMs (1.7B--4B) on two large-scale CT report datasets (CT-RATE and Merlin). At matched LLM token budgets, anatomy-guided region of interest cropping is the most consistent strategy, improving clinical macro F1 in 19 of 20 settings by +3.7 points on average for the 3D ViT Primus encoder and +1.1 for the slice-based 2D ViT Curia encoder. Increasing input resolution further is strongly projector-dependent: the PerceiverResampler, paired with higher-resolution Curia features, yields the strongest configuration in the resolution study on both datasets. Our best configurations achieve state-of-the-art clinical macro F1 on the test sets, reaching 49.5 on CT-RATE and 49.0 on Merlin. Code and models will be published upon publication.

Radiomics is the established approach for CT-based lung cancer phenotyping, yet comparisons with foundation models rarely isolate contributions of feature extractor, classification head, and segmentation choice, or test cross-cohort robustness. We benchmark five feature extractors (Curia, Curia-2, DINOv3, Radiomics2D, Radiomics3D), seven classification heads (TabPFN, TabICL, XGBoost, CatBoost, Random Forest, logistic regression, Ridge), and three segmentation regimes on five tasks: tumor volume and stage classification, 2-year survival prediction, histology classification, and age prediction. Models are trained on LUNG1 (n=338) and evaluated on an internal test set (n=84) and the external LUNG2 cohort (n=211), with worst-case cross-cohort performance as the primary metric. The dominant design factor is task-dependent: segmentation drives volume and stage classification, while classifier choice drives survival, histology, and age prediction. Radiomics is competitive for tumor volume, tumor stage and survival (partly due to label-derivation effects for the former); Curia variants reach comparable peak scores for survival; DINOv3 falls slightly short across tasks. Patch and slice aggregation have negligible impact. We recommend Curia with tumor segmentation and a CatBoost head as a safe default, achieving the best mean rank across the three primary clinical tasks, though task-specific selection consistently outperforms any cross-task default. When tumor delineations are unavailable, Curia-2 with lung segmentation and logistic regression offers a competitive alternative. All pipelines use a two-stage design suited to small cohort sizes where end-to-end fine-tuning would risk overfitting.