cs.AIJun 11, 2026

Hallucination in Medical Imaging AI: A Cross-Modality Analytical Framework for Taxonomy, Detection, and Mitigation under Regulatory Constraints

Authors: Omar Alshahrani, Muzammil Behzad

Organizations: King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia · SDAIA-KFUPM Joint Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

AI systems are being deployed across medical imaging faster than their failure modes are understood. At this point in time, the failure of greatest clinical concern is hallucination: clinically plausible but factually incorrect outputs, including fabricated anatomical structures, missed findings, incorrect laterality, and invented measurements in generated reports, with direct consequences, for example, for biopsy decisions, staging, and treatment planning. This structured narrative synthesizes peer-reviewed studies, benchmark datasets, and FDA regulatory guidance across five imaging modalities to produce a cross-modality analysis of hallucination taxonomy, etiology, detection, and mitigation. Specifically, we address three questions in this study: (1) how can existing taxonomies be unified across modalities?, (2) how do medical-specialized foundation models hallucinate less than general-purpose ones?, and (3) which mitigation strategies are effective and compatible with FDA lifecycle oversight? We note that three taxonomic frameworks together cover the imaging pipeline in a way no single framework does alone. We also highlight that general-purpose foundation models outperform medical-specialized models on hallucination-specific benchmarks, indicating that narrow domain fine-tuning can introduce overfitting-induced confabulation. At the same time, the oversight of radiologists remains essential; for instance, a very high percentage of of AI-generated flags required expert correction before clinical use. Physics-informed architectural constraints, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and human-in-the-loop safeguards each address different failure modes and is effective when combined. All findings are mapped to the FDA's Total Product Lifecycle and Predetermined Change Control Plan frameworks, which treat hallucination management as a lifecycle obligation rather than a pre-deployment checklist.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 19, 2026cs.CV

HalluCXR: Benchmarking and Mitigating Hallucinations in Medical Vision-Language Models for Chest Radiograph Interpretation

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used for medical image interpretation, yet they frequently hallucinate, generating clinically plausible but factually incorrect findings that pose direct patient safety risks. We introduce HalluCXR, a benchmark evaluating six architecturally diverse VLMs across 856 stratified MIMIC-CXR chest radiographs and three query types, yielding 15,408 model evaluations. An eight-category hallucination taxonomy with clinical severity ratings and a two-layer detection pipeline are validated against 250 human annotations (auto-detection F1=0.959; LLM judge F1=0.907). We find that 61.9--82.3% of outputs contain hallucinations, with clinically dangerous errors in up to 80.2%. Three key patterns emerge: normal radiographs paradoxically attract the most severe hallucinations, common findings are systematically over-fabricated while rare findings go under-detected, and response length alone predicts hallucination risk (AUC up to 0.908). A six-model ensemble reduces fabrication by up to 84.8% at the cost of increased omission; a three-model subset retains comparable performance at half the cost. These results establish that hallucination auditing, verbosity-based risk monitoring, and ensemble-based safety layers are prerequisites for clinical deployment.
Haoyu Wang, Zitong Li
Medical Vision-Language ModelsChest RadiographyHallucinationsHallucination MitigationCalibrated Severity
AskPDF
May 11, 2026cs.CV

Med-StepBench: A Hierarchical Reasoning Framework for Evaluating Hallucinations in Medical Vision-Language Models

Large vision-language models (VLMs) demonstrate strong performance in medical image understanding, but frequently generate clinically plausible yet incorrect statements, raising significant safety concerns. Existing medical hallucination benchmarks primarily focus on 2D imaging with one-shot diagnostic questions, offering limited insight into whether predictions are grounded in correct localization and abnormality identification, allowing critical reasoning errors to remain hidden behind seemingly correct diagnoses. We introduce Med-StepBench, the first large-scale benchmark for step-wise hallucination detection in 3D oncological PET/CT, comprising over 12,000 images and more than 1,000,000 image-statement pairs across volumetric and multi-view 2D data, which decomposes clinical reasoning into four expert-designed diagnostic stages. Using clinician-verified annotations, we perform the first step-level evaluation of general-purpose and medical VLMs, revealing systematic failure modes obscured by aggregate accuracy metrics. Furthermore, we show that current VLMs are highly susceptible to adversarial yet clinically plausible intermediate explanations, which significantly amplify hallucinations despite contradictory visual evidence. Together, our findings highlight fundamental limitations in grounding multi-step clinical reasoning and establish Med-StepBench as a rigorous benchmark for developing safer and more reliable medical VLMs.
Minh Khoi Nguyen, Dai Lam Le, Amir Reza Jafari +8
Medical Vision-Language ModelsRobust Hallucination DetectionHallucination RateClinical ReasoningMedical ImagingDiagnostic Benchmark+1
AskPDF
May 13, 2026stat.ML

On Hallucinations in Inverse Problems: Fundamental Limits and Provable Assessment Methods

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed imaging inverse problems, from medical diagnostics to Earth observation. Yet deep neural networks can produce hallucinations, realistic-looking but incorrect details, undermining their reliability, especially when ground truth data is unavailable. We develop a theoretical framework showing that such hallucinations are not merely artifacts of particular models, but can arise from the ill-posed nature of the inverse problem itself. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for hallucinations, together with computable bounds on their magnitude that depend only on the forward model. Building on this theory, we introduce algorithms to: (1) estimate the minimum hallucination magnitude achievable by any reconstruction model for a given input; (2) assess the faithfulness of reconstructed details by a given reconstruction model. Experiments across three imaging tasks demonstrate that our approach applies broadly, including to modern generative models, and provides a principled way to quantify and evaluate AI hallucinations.
David Iagaru, Nina M. Gottschling, Anders C. Hansen +1
Hallucination RateHallucinationsInverse ProblemGround TruthComputerized Adaptive Testing
AskPDF