Medical-Checklist: Assessing the Comprehension of Medical Images by Multimodal Models

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly expected to support clinical workflows through diagnostic text and relevant medical images. However, current medical visual benchmarks have three recurring limitations: query-image misalignment from queries weakly grounded in specific image instances, closed-ended formats that narrow answer space and encourage shortcut-based prediction, and text-centric output paradigms that limit evaluation of image-generation and image-editing capabilities. We introduce MedGEN-Bench, a benchmark for open-ended multimodal medical generation. The evaluation snapshot reported in this manuscript comprises 6,422 image-text pairs reviewed by clinical experts and models, spanning 6 canonical imaging modalities, 15 clinical tasks, and 27 named subtasks. It includes 1,100 Visual Question Answering (VQA) pairs, 3,872 Image Editing pairs, and 1,450 Contextual Multimodal Generation pairs. MedGEN-Bench centers on contextual entanglement: dependence of an instruction's intended output on the particular image instance rather than on task wording alone. The benchmark operationalizes this concept through image-grounded instructions and extends evaluation to open-ended multimodal outputs. Its tiered evaluation protocol combines reproducible reference-based fidelity and similarity measures with a structured, checklist-guided assessment by a medical VLM judge. We evaluate 10 compositional frameworks, 2 dedicated image-editing models, 3 unified models, and 5 VLMs. The results show image-output tasks remain unsaturated. Contextual augmentation increases mean image-instruction similarity from 0.273 to 0.372, while a 1,000-case medical-expert audit shows moderate agreement between judge scores and clinician ratings. Source code and dataset are available at https://yangjj007.github.io/medgen.

A benchmark score credits final answers, but not the route by which an item can be answered. In medical multimodal multiple-choice questions (MCQs), this distinction matters because a correct answer can be supported by the intended image finding or by benchmark-preserved cues in the wording of answers, non-visual clinical text, visible image text, artificial annotations, or device/context artifacts. We call the resulting score-level overinterpretation reasoning inflation. Here, a route is an observable input path that can support answer selection, not a claim about the model's hidden cognition. Across six medical multimodal MCQ datasets, we separate candidate cues from behavioral evidence through prompt- and image-side audits, modality ablations, and matched repairs that preserve the medical target and answer key. In a 13-configuration open-model panel, full-input accuracy is 62.63%, while text-only and options-only settings achieve 53.96% and 29.71%, respectively. Removing length-gap, absolute/conspicuous, and spatial/prepositional cues lowers accuracy by 6.58, 3.50, and 4.77 percentage points. We also construct MedQA-MM, a 1,000-item shortcut-mitigated subset, where text-only and options-only accuracy fall to 5.21% and 12.33%. This does not imply that models never use images; it shows that medical image-reasoning claims require route-level evidence.

Recent advances in large language models and vision-language models have enabled reasoning over multimodal data, offering opportunities for clinical applications such as decision support and triaging. However, existing medical AI benchmarks are fragmented: some support multi-turn dialogues but lack images, while others provide multimodal inputs but focus on single-turn QA tasks. To address this gap, we introduce IMCBench, an image-grounded, multi-turn medical conversation benchmark that pairs real, publicly available clinical images with synthetic patient profiles to simulate realistic patient-clinician interactions. Each conversation is evaluated across three clinical dimensions: safety, accuracy, and appropriate use of uncertainty in diagnosis. We benchmark eight multimodal frontier models across four model families (Claude, GPT, Nova, and Llama), scoring each on a 1-5 scale using LLM-as-Jury scoring calibrated against expert clinician annotations. Our results show that Claude Opus 4.6 achieves the highest overall score (3.61), followed by Claude Sonnet 4.6 (3.30) and GPT-5.2 (3.29), though no model dominates all dimensions and safety degrades for both malignant and rare conditions ($Δ$ = -0.27 each). Ablation studies further reveal that both visual input and EHR context contribute to safe guidance (safety drops of 0.18 and 0.23 on average when each is removed), with stronger models leveraging visual features more effectively. Together, these findings demonstrate that accurate clinical description does not guarantee safe patient guidance, motivating the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks in medical AI.