Towards Clinically Faithful Medical Image Captioning via Enhanced Vision-Language Alignment
Organizations: Department of Statistics and Data Science, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea · Department of Smart Cities, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea · Department of Applied Statistics, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Medical image captioning is a technique that accelerates early-stage diagnostic workflows and enhances the interpretability of medical diagnostic AI systems. However, unlike general image captioning, clinically reliable captioning remains challenging due to grayscale-based modalities, subtle anatomical cues, specialized medical phrasing, and variations in data quality. Despite recent advances in large vision-language models, fluent outputs do not necessarily guarantee sufficient alignment with clinical concept spaces or evaluation criteria. To address this issue, we propose a framework that strengthens clinical alignment by separating and enhancing training-time alignment and inference-time alignment. We build a medical image captioning pipeline that integrates single/dual vision encoders based on BioMedCLIP and SigLIP2, a Q-Former, and a LLaMA-based decoder, and examine the contribution of auxiliary learning for UMLS concept/type prediction. At inference, we apply single-embedding-based reranking to select the best caption among candidates, while at training we introduce MedPAIR-SCST, which combines clinically relevant rewards to shift the generative distribution toward improved clinical alignment. Our experiments show that complementary visual representations with a multi-encoder design and concept-level auxiliary learning help preserve clinically meaningful information. Furthermore, inference-time reranking provides a practical way to improve semantic and clinical alignment without additional training, whereas MedPAIR-SCST goes beyond selection by directly improving the model's distribution to generate more consistent and clinically grounded captions. These findings suggest that jointly leveraging selection-based alignment and reinforcement-learning-based alignment can promote more trustworthy medical image captioning even in data-constrained settings.
Figures & tables
| Chain-of-Thought Summarization Template | Prompt-guided Summarization Template |
|---|---|
| You are a board-certified radiologist. Task: 1) Parse each caption and list semantic components such as modality, anatomic site, and pathologies. 2) Build a consensus table based on token frequency. 3) Resolve conflicts by majority vote or by selecting the more specific description. 4) Compose one radiology-style sentence (approximately 35–45 words). Output: FINAL_CAPTION: <your summary> Captions: caption 1: {caption1} caption 2: {caption2} caption 3: {caption3} caption 4: {caption4} caption 5: {caption5} caption 6: {caption6} | You are a radiologist summarizing multiple captions of a medical image into one detailed sentence. Instructions: 1) Integrate the imaging modality, anatomical location, pathological findings, and relevant clinical details. 2) Use medically correct and extractive phrasing with high token overlap; avoid paraphrasing unless synonymous medical terminology improves clarity. 3) Use present continuous tense with a subject–predicate–object structure. 4) Keep the summary natural, clinically accurate, and around 40 words. 5) If captions are inconsistent, prioritize findings with the highest diagnostic or therapeutic relevance. Captions: caption 1: {caption1} caption 2: {caption2} caption 3: {caption3} caption 4: {caption4} caption 5: {caption5} caption 6: {caption6} |
| The Chain-of-Thought strategy decomposes candidate captions into semantic units and aggregates them through consensus, whereas the Prompt-guided strategy directly synthesizes multiple captions into a clinically coherent single-sentence summary. Both templates are designed to generate standardized radiology-style descriptions from diverse candidate captions. | |
| Encoder | Aux. | BERT-R | ROUGE-1 | BLEURT | UMLS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioMedCLIP | X | 0.5845 | 0.2261 | 0.3100 | 0.1405 |
| SigLIP2 | X | 0.5796 | 0.2194 | 0.3047 | 0.1397 |
| Dual Encoder | X | 0.5826 | 0.2305 | 0.3133 | 0.1514 |
| BioMedCLIP | O | 0.5860 | 0.2252 | 0.3100 | 0.1411 |
| SigLIP2 | O | 0.5837 | 0.2289 | 0.3090 | 0.1438 |
| Dual Encoder | O | 0.5863 | 0.2347 | 0.3150 | 0.1528 |
| Encoder | Aux. | BERT-R | BERT-R w/o IDF | ROUGE-1 | BLEURT | UMLS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioMedCLIP | X | 0.5714 | 0.6284 | 0.2285 | 0.3025 | 0.1317 |
| SigLIP2 | X | 0.5632 | 0.6227 | 0.2183 | 0.2937 | 0.1197 |
| Dual Encoder | X | 0.5775 | 0.6246 | 0.2382 | 0.3098 | 0.1450 |
| BioMedCLIP | O | 0.5625 | 0.6189 | 0.2167 | 0.3000 | 0.1229 |
| SigLIP2 | O | 0.5577 | 0.6157 | 0.2067 | 0.2921 | 0.1099 |
| Dual Encoder | O | 0.5734 | 0.6298 | 0.2334 | 0.3065 | 0.1463 |
| Fusion method | BERT-R | BERT-R w/o IDF | ROUGE-1 | BLEURT | UMLS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simple Concat | 0.5734 | 0.6298 | 0.2334 | 0.3065 | 0.1463 |
| SA Fusion | 0.5383 | 0.5394 | 0.1839 | 0.2893 | 0.1096 |
| CA Fusion | 0.5570 | - | 0.2064 | 0.2893 | 0.1238 |
| Reranker | BERT-R | ROUGE-1 | BLEURT | UMLS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioMedCLIP | 0.5873 | 0.2338 | 0.3130 | 0.1499 |
| BLEURT* | 0.5880 | 0.2368 | 0.3178 | 0.1539 |
| bioBERT | 0.5922 | 0.2409 | 0.3179 | 0.1552 |
| Base Model (8B) | 0.5826 | 0.2440 | 0.3176 | 0.1547 |
| Method | BERT-R | BERT-R w/o IDF | ROUGE-1 | BLEURT | UMLS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2Gen [ 42 ] | 0.5519 | 0.5967 | 0.2212 | 0.2710 | 0.1495 |
| CvTdistilGPT2 [ 43 ] | 0.5805 | 0.6207 | 0.2299 | 0.2867 | 0.1318 |
| Base Model(1B) | 0.5775 | 0.6246 | 0.2382 | 0.3098 | 0.1450 |
| Base Model(1B) + MedPAIR-SCST | 0.6000 | 0.6584 | 0.2755 | 0.3122 | 0.1821 |
| Method | BERT-R | ROUGE-1 | BLEURT | UMLS F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoT | 0.5705 | 0.2032 | 0.3197 | 0.1236 |
| Prompt-guided | 0.5723 | 0.2016 | 0.3176 | 0.1242 |
Medical VLMs
Medical vision-language models connect clinical images with text for diagnosis, reporting, question answering, and image grounding.
See all 474 papers