CXR-Retrieve: Compositional Text-to-Image Retrieval in Chest Radiography

Medical vision-language models report strong chest radiograph accuracy, and this is increasingly read as evidence that they use the image. That inference is unsafe: a model exploiting finding-name priors scores like one that reads the scan, and no standard benchmark separates them. We introduce a causal audit that intervenes on the image, occluding the relevant region, occluding an irrelevant one, and swapping in another patient's same-label scan, and combines three behavioral metrics to test whether a correct answer depends on the image. Across nine systems, a text-only model with no image access reaches within 5.7 accuracy points of the best multimodal one, and a 119-billion-parameter multimodal model is statistically indistinguishable from a 7-billion text-only baseline. The audit splits the cohort into three models that ignore the image, one that is unstable, and five that use it selectively, for a subset of findings; the categories hold across a second dataset, resolution, and prompt phrasing. Against board-certified radiologists, a text-only model is statistically indistinguishable from a radiologist's accuracy while grounding at zero, whereas the image-using models ground at radiologist-comparable rates. Reported confidence flags ungrounded answers only when a model uses the image. Grounding audits, not accuracy, should gate clinical deployment.

When a chest X-ray shows consolidation but the question asks which finding is present, a medical vision-language model may answer "No consolidation." This is more than an incorrect choice: it is a polarity reversal that emits a clinical statement contradicting the image. We study this failure as negated-option attraction, where a model is drawn to a negated answer option even when it conflicts with both the visual evidence and the question. We introduce CXR-ContraBench (Chest X-Ray Contradiction Benchmark), a diagnostic benchmark spanning internal ReXVQA slices and external OpenI and CheXpert protocols. The benchmark centers on present-finding questions, where selecting "No X" despite visible X creates the main clinical risk, and uses absent-finding questions as secondary tests of whether models copy negated wording. Across CheXpert protocols, the failure is substantial and persistent. On a strict direct presence probe, MedGemma and Qwen2.5-VL reach only 31.49% and 30.21% accuracy, respectively; on a matched 135,754-record CheXpert training-split protocol, both models select negated options on over 62% of presence questions. Chain-of-thought prompting reduces some presence-side reversals but does not eliminate them and can amplify absence-side contradictions. Finally, QCCV-Neg (Question-Conditioned Consistency Verifier for Negation) deterministically repairs the measured polarity-confused subset without retraining, raising MedGemma and Qwen2.5-VL to 96.60% and 95.32% accuracy on the direct presence probe. These results show that standard accuracy can hide a clinically meaningful inference-time polarity failure. Source code and benchmark construction scripts are available at https://github.com/fangzr/cxr-contrabench-code.

Chest X-ray (CXR) radiology report generation (RRG) models have shown rapid progress on automated metrics, yet their clinical utility remains uncertain due to limited qualitative evaluation by radiologists. We present CXRMate-2, a state-of-the-art CXR RRG model that enables tractable reinforcement learning (RL) through structured multimodal temporal embeddings and high-resolution visual feature compression, for efficient, unified conditioning of an LLM decoder on visual, textual, and temporal context from a study and its prior. This enables group relative policy optimisation (GRPO), where a proposed reward function is used to improve semantic alignment with radiologist reports. Across the MIMIC-CXR, CheXpert Plus, and ReXgradient datasets, CXRMate-2 achieves statistically significant improvements over strong benchmarks, including gains of 11.2% and 24.4% in GREEN and RadGraph-XL, respectively, on MIMIC-CXR relative to MedGemma 1.5 (4B). To directly compare CXRMate-2 against radiologist reporting, we conduct a blinded, randomised qualitative retrospective evaluation. Three consultant radiologists compare generated and radiologist reports across 120 studies from the MIMIC-CXR test set. Generated reports were deemed acceptable (defined as preferred or rated equally to radiologist reports) in 45% of ratings, with no statistically significant difference in preference rates for seven of the eight analysed findings. Preferences for radiologist reports were driven primarily by higher recall, while generated reports were consistently preferred for readability. Together, these results define a clear pathway to clinically acceptable CXR RRG. Improving recall and the detection of subtle findings represents the primary remaining barrier to non-inferiority with radiologist reporting, positioning CXR RRG for prospective evaluation in assistive, radiologist-led workflows.