When Repository Labels Are Not Image-Level Truth: A Supervision Auditing Framework for Chest Radiograph AI

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.

Vision-language models return structured chest-radiograph findings through interfaces exposing no confidence score, so a receiving institution cannot read off how far to trust an individual judgment. Whether agreement with an institution's reference standard transfers across sites, findings, prediction directions and question formats is largely unmeasured. We evaluated three generative vision-language models on three institutional chest-radiograph corpora and six findings under two elicitation protocols, comprising more than 345,000 finding-level predictions, and estimated finding-by-direction reference agreement at a receiving institution from a small budget of local labels. Estimation strategies were then stress-tested under repeated strict institution-held-out evaluation. Under evaluation excluding the receiving institution from development entirely, adaptive selection among the seven estimators that design admits did not improve on simple fixed alternatives: it achieved a mean Brier score of 0.1083, against 0.0853 for always using a Beta-Binomial empirical-Bayes estimator and 0.0855 for a target-only logistic model. Those two differ by 0.0003, less than this family's own sensitivity to a change of solver version, and each leads in about half the settings, so no default can be recommended. Their advantage over estimators pooling across institutions was concentrated at one site and not confirmatory once clustered by institution, and a plug-in empirical-Bayes posterior-predictive count interval at a nominal 95% level covered 87.0%, less at the hardest institution. Reference agreement therefore has to be re-evaluated per site and per interface; these results concern agreement with institutional labels, not clinical correctness.

Medical-imaging AI benchmarks combine datasets, DICOM rendering, prompts, provider APIs, automated labels, statistical code, manuscripts, and repository releases. Agreement across these artifacts is usually assumed rather than tested. We performed a retrospective forensic reproducibility audit of a preserved chest-radiograph vision-language model (VLM) pilot; no model was called again and no image or report was newly annotated. We traced prompt bindings, DICOM metadata, output completeness, label extraction, matched analyses, and release propagation. Of 300 planned model-prompt calls, 297 yielded nonempty reports. Sixty Claude calls labeled A/B were executed with the same C prompt. The 30 studies represented 28 patients. Four MONOCHROME1 images were rendered without required polarity inversion, dataset split membership was not retained, and the unvalidated extractor truncated five reports to 4000 characters. Reconstructing one common cohort of 369 complete case-finding blocks changed Cochran's Q from 154.73 to 182.29. Of 45 McNemar comparisons, 27 had unadjusted p < 0.05 and 20 remained below 0.05 after Holm adjustment. These values describe only the archived automated-label matrix; they do not recover the intended prompt comparison or establish clinical performance. We withdraw the original performance, ranking, prompt-effect, and clinical claims and specify machine-verifiable controls for cohort, DICOM rendering, prompt and model identity, call status, annotation provenance, keyed analysis, and derived artifacts.