Organizations: DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group · College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University · State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices and TIDRI, Zhejiang University · The Second Affiliated Hospital and Liangzhu Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine · Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging Artificial Intelligence · Hupan Lab · School of Public Health, Zhejiang University
Volumetric medical VQA requires reasoning over long and redundant 3D visual token sequences, especially in multi-sequence MRI where complementary modalities provide diverse diagnostic cues but expose the decoder to many repeated anatomical regions. To investigate reasoning under multi-sequence visual redundancy, we first introduce BreMRIs-VQA, a clinically curated breast MRI benchmark with 1.19M QA pairs from 71.0K sequences and 12.9K patients, covering both free-text and multiple-choice questions. We further propose SeVeR, a selective visual exposure framework that compresses dense volumes into modality-wise prototypes and retrieves complementary multi-level evidence with change-aware gated attention during decoding, trained with a marginal-utility self-consistency objective that suppresses unhelpful retrieval. Experiments on BreMRIs-VQA and public benchmarks show that SeVeR improves both discriminative and generative performance while exposing substantially fewer visual tokens.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the BreMRIs-VQA benchmark and the proposed SeVeR. (a–b) BreMRIs-VQA contains 6 MRI modalities and 7 categories of clinical tasks derived from 1.19M QA pairs. (c) Architecture of SeVeR, which integrates Greedy Prototype Selection, Change-aware Gated Attention, and Self-Consistency Regularization. (d–e) SeVeR’s superior performance in multiple-choice and free-text generation tasks.
Figure 2: Dataset construction pipeline. The top-right pie chart depicts hierarchical clinical attribute distribution.
Figure 3: Overview of SeVeR. Multi-modal 3D volumes are first encoded into dense tokens via a shared 3D ViT. The Greedy Prototype Selector (GPS) distills redundant tokens into compact prototypes using global affinity to preserve broad visual coverage. Change-aware Gated Attention (CaGA) dynamically injects multi-level features from a bank during decoding, using language-conditioned decoder states to retrieve complementary evidence.
Task
Metric
Zero-shot
Fine-tune
Qwen3-VL
Hulu-Med
Hulu-Med
Lingshu
M3D-Phi3
M3D-L2
M3D-L3
Lingshu
Qwen3-VL
SeVeR
4B
4B
7B
32B
4B
7B
8B
7B
4B
4B
Global Background Assessment
Accuracy
23.20
57.25
59.95
69.43
76.78
72.83
66.53
88.23
89.43
89.82
BLEU
72.76
80.34
82.91
85.12
91.23
92.87
90.12
95.92
96.55
96.63
ROUGE
72.63
84.76
87.42
91.07
93.45
94.81
92.15
97.42
97.86
97.85
BERT.
94.41
97.83
98.36
99.27
98.94
99.22
98.83
99.62
99.63
99.68
Table 1: Main performance on BreMRIs-VQA. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best performance.
Method
Vis. Tokens
Lat. (ms) ↓
Accuracy
BERT.
Baseline
12544
952.6
69.18
98.42
VisionZip
256
630.8
67.63
98.16
VisionZip
512
698.4
68.72
98.34
VisionZip
1024
829.6
69.03
98.39
DivPrune
256
605.7
67.21
98.08
DivPrune
512
625.6
68.24
98.25
Table 2: Latency–performance comparison with visual token pruning methods on BreMRIs-VQA.
Figure 4: Missing-modality robustness. Multiple-choice accuracy under six modality settings (S1–S6).
Figure 5: Interpretability visualization of SeVeR on the question “What is the delayed phase enhancement kinetics of the mass in the upper inner quadrant of the right breast?” with six MRI modalities.
Task
Metric
Zero-shot
Finetune
Q2.5VL
Q3VL
RadFM
M3D-L2
M3D-P3
OmniV
Lingshu
M3D-L2
M3D-P3
Qwen3-VL
SeVeR
4B
4B
13B
7B
4B
1.5B
7B
7B
4B
4B
4B
Exist. Det.
Accuracy
19.52
3.52
29.20
18.00
40.25
28.66
59.60
81.09
82.43
82.52
82.62
Static T. Diag.
Accuracy
0.00
0.00
44.11
25.47
25.40
22.96
6.02
51.20
49.30
47.70
51.77
Longit. T. Diag.
Accuracy
0.29
0.15
42.99
24.17
24.31
24.23
12.13
74.78
74.77
74.39
75.28
Medical Measurement
BLEU
1.78
0.11
3.34
15.95
2.55
2.52
2.50
30.54
33.52
35.01
36.78
Table 3: Comparison of zero-shot and finetuned performance across six tasks in 3D-RAD. Exist. Det.: Existence Detection; Static T. Diag.: Static Temporal Diagnosis; Longit. T. Diag.: Longitudinal Temporal Diagnosis. Q2.5VL: Qwen2.5-VL; Q3VL: Qwen3-VL. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best performance.
Type
Metric
Merlin
M3D-L2
M3D-P3
CT-CHAT
RadFM
SeVeR
Meas
MC
0.256
0.733
0.740
0.740
0.739
0.735
FT
0.364
0.370
0.366
0.379
0.434
0.521
Recog
MC
0.661
0.664
0.661
0.664
0.789
0.707
FT
0.664
0.665
0.660
0.663
0.812
0.715
VisRsn
MC
0.382
0.616
0.627
0.620
0.625
0.673
FT
0.392
0.408
0.420
0.428
0.439
0.499
Table 4: Average DeepTumorVQA performance. Meas: Measurement; Recog: Recognition; VisRsn: Visual Reasoning; MedRsn: Medical Reasoning. MC: multiple-choice accuracy; FT: average free-text score.
Setting
Acc.
BLEU
ROUGE
BERT.
k
Baseline Ft.
69.45
89.87
89.56
98.58
4608
w/o CaGA
64.36
88.92
85.30
95.42
512
w/o Regul.
68.17
87.04
89.16
97.63
512
Q-GPS
69.92
90.21
89.83
97.66
512
SeVeR
70.57
91.08
90.15
98.70
512
Table 5: Compact ablation summary on BreMRIs-VQA. We report average metrics across seven tasks and the number of visual prototypes exposed to the decoder.
Figure 6: Prototype-budget latency profile. Latency and performance under prototype budgets k , with the full-token no-limit setting shown as a dashed reference.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Level–task–attribute flow of BreMRIs-VQA. Ribbon width is proportional to the number of generated QA templates, and colors correspond to the seven clinical workflow task groups.
Figure 8: Question and answer text word clouds for BreMRIs-VQA. Font size indicates token frequency after removing common function words. Unlike the attribute-frequency statistics, this visualization is computed directly from the natural-language question and answer text.
Category
Question Template
Options
Fibroglandular Tissue (FGT)
What is the fibroglandular tissue (FGT) category of the left breast?
A, B, C, D, None
What is the fibroglandular tissue (FGT) category of the right breast?
A, B, C, D, None
Background Parenchymal Enhancement
What is the background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) level of the left breast?
Minimal, Mild, Moderate, Marked
What is the background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) level of the right breast?
Minimal, Mild, Moderate, Marked
Breast Symmetry
Are the breasts symmetric in size and shape?
Yes, No
Post-surgical Changes
Are there evidence of scar tissue in the left breast?
Yes, No
Appendix
Table 6: Breast-level question templates used for MRI VQA generation.
Category
Question Template
Options
Mass Presence & Location
Is there a mass in the upper inner quadrant of the left breast?
Yes, No
Is there a mass in the upper outer quadrant of the left breast?
Yes, No
Is there a mass in the lower inner quadrant of the right breast?
Yes, No
Is there a mass in the central region of the breast?
Yes, No
Mass Morphology
What is the shape of the mass in the left breast?
round, oval, lobular, irregular
What is the margin of the mass in the left breast?
circumscribed, irregular, spiculated
Appendix
Table 7: Lesion-level question templates used for MRI VQA generation.
Category
Question Template
Options
Presence & Surgical Procedure
Is there a pathological lesion identified in the left breast?
Yes, No
Is there a pathological lesion identified in the right breast?
Yes, No
What surgical procedure was performed on the left breast?
Lumpectomy, Mastectomy, Other
What surgical procedure was performed on the right breast?
Lumpectomy, Mastectomy, Other
Tumor Characteristics
Is the maximum pathological tumor size larger than 2 cm?
Yes, No
What is the histological grade of the tumor?
1, 2, 3, Unknown
Appendix
Table 8: Pathology question templates used for pathology report VQA generation.
Question Template
Describe the overall fibroglandular tissue composition and background parenchymal enhancement of both breasts.
Provide a comprehensive description of the mass identified in the breast MRI.
Describe the imaging characteristics of the non-mass enhancement in the breast.
Describe the appearance of axillary and internal mammary lymph nodes.
Provide the final BI-RADS assessment and overall diagnostic impression.
Appendix
Table 9: Free-text diagnostic question templates used for holistic clinical reasoning.
Task
Fact.
Clin.
Overall
Pass (%)
Global background
2.94
2.92
2.93
99.2
Lesion localization
2.91
2.89
2.90
98.6
Morphology
2.86
2.83
2.84
97.5
Functional reasoning
2.79
2.75
2.77
96.2
Local invasion/nodal
2.88
2.86
2.87
97.9
Holistic diagnosis
2.82
2.79
2.80
96.8
Appendix
Table 10: Quality-control summary for generated QA pairs. Fact., Clin., and Overall denote factual consistency, clinical validity, and overall report support on a 0–3 scale. Pass rate denotes the percentage of expert-audited QA pairs that pass answer–evidence checking.
Table 11: Key–task mapping rules used to organize generated questions into clinical-workflow based tasks.
List of algorithms 1 Greedy Prototype Selection (GPS)
Setting
Base VLM
GBA
LDL
Morph.
MMFR
LINR
HD
PP
Avg.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
SeVeR-3B
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
88.90
99.55
77.78
99.80
56.89
97.32
79.56
99.22
76.85
97.60
36.02
97.48
75.47
99.23
70.21
98.60
SeVeR-4B
Qwen3-VL-4B
89.82
99.68
78.48
99.87
57.45
97.46
80.11
99.43
77.42
97.77
36.53
97.59
74.18
99.10
70.57
98.70
SeVeR-8B
Qwen3-VL-8B
91.08
99.74
80.14
99.90
59.02
97.68
81.65
99.55
79.06
97.96
38.14
97.87
75.82
99.24
72.13
98.85
Appendix
Table 12: Full cross-model scaling on BreMRIs-VQA. Task abbreviations: GBA = Global Background Assessment, LDL = Lesion Detection and Localization, Morph. = Morphological Characterization, MMFR = Multi-Modal Functional Reasoning, LINR = Local Invasion and Nodal Reasoning, HD = Holistic Diagnosis, PP = Pathology Prediction. Avg. denotes the macro-average across the seven tasks.
Setting
GBA
LDL
Morph.
MMFR
LINR
HD
PP
Avg.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Acc.
BERT.
Effect of τv (visual-affinity temperature).
τv =0.05
89.10
99.55
77.64
99.75
56.72
97.21
79.42
99.21
76.83
97.53
36.05
97.32
73.26
98.92
69.86
98.50
τv =0.10 †
89.82
99.68
78.48
99.87
57.45
97.46
80.11
99.43
77.42
97.77
36.53
97.59
74.18
99.10
70.57
98.70
τv =0.20
89.36
99.61
78.03
99.80
57.21
97.33
79.73
99.29
77.08
97.61
36.31
97.44
73.55
98.98
70.18
98.58
Effect of k (prototype budget).
Appendix
Table 13: Hyperparameter sensitivity on BreMRIs-VQA. Each block varies one hyperparameter while keeping the others fixed at their default values, marked with † . We report multiple-choice accuracy (Acc.) and free-text BERTScore (BERT). GBA = Global Background Assessment, LDL = Lesion Detection and Localization, Morph. = Morphological Characterization, MMFR = Multi-Modal Functional Reasoning, LINR = Local Invasion and Nodal Reasoning, HD = Holistic Diagnosis, PP = Pathology Prediction.
Type
Subtype
Multiple-choice
Free-text
Merlin
M3D-L2
M3D-P3
CT-CHAT
RadFM
SeVeR
Merlin
M3D-L2
M3D-P3
CT-CHAT
RadFM
SeVeR
7B
7B
4B
7B
13B
4B
7B
7B
4B
7B
13B
4B
Meas
Lesion Volume ∗
0.253
0.815
0.825
0.833
0.815
0.819
0.079
0.085
0.079
0.075
0.112
0.258
Organ HU ∗
0.254
0.638
0.640
0.637
0.647
0.637
0.487
0.490
0.491
0.513
0.608
0.620
Organ Volume ∗
0.262
0.747
0.754
0.750
0.755
0.748
0.526
0.535
0.528
0.549
0.583
0.685
Average
0.256
0.733
0.740
0.740
0.739
0.735
0.364
0.370
0.366
0.379
0.434
0.521
Appendix
Table 14: Full subtype-level performance on DeepTumorVQA. Subtypes marked with ∗ indicate free-text numerical answers evaluated using MRA (higher is better).
Metrics
E.D.
S.T.D.
L.T.D.
Medical Measurement
Image Observation
Anomaly Detection
Exposed tokens
Acc.
Acc.
Acc.
BLEU
ROUGE
BERT
BLEU
ROUGE
BERT
BLEU
ROUGE
BERT
Baseline Zs.
3.52
0
0.15
0.11
0.08
76.65
0.26
0.44
76.22
0.24
0.54
76.65
4608
SeVeR Phase1
22.94
10.54
21.12
10.47
20.78
91.23
4.74
17.94
86.5
5.36
17.28
86.24
512
Baseline Ft.
82.01
45.16
72.19
32.95
33.78
95.03
42.63
45.25
91.92
34.27
37.54
90.58
4608
w/o CaGA
75.73
41.70
66.66
30.43
31.19
87.75
39.36
41.78
84.88
31.64
34.66
83.64
512
k =256
82.11
51.36
75.63
37.21
39.56
95.95
48.84
53.72
93.10
39.07
44.85
91.56
256
Appendix
Table 15: Full ablation study on 3D-RAD. We report task performance and the average number of exposed input visual tokens. E.D. = Existence Detection, S.T.D. = Static Temporal Diagnosis, L.T.D. = Longitudinal Temporal Diagnosis, Zs. = Zero-shot, Ft. = Fine-tune, Acc. = Accuracy, and BERT = BERTScore.
Figure 9: Robustness to modality availability under different settings. SeVeR (solid) vs. w/o selective exposure (dashed) under six modality settings (S1–S6). (a) BERTScore, (b) BLEU, (c) ROUGE for free-text quality.
Task
Model
Acc.
BLEU
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Global Background Assessment
w/o Proto.
89.82
89.82
83.10
87.78
79.97
89.43
95.66
95.90
72.76
95.43
96.49
96.63
SeVeR
89.82
89.82
89.82
87.78
80.77
89.82
96.63
96.63
96.65
96.63
96.44
96.63
Lesion Detection & Localization
w/o Proto.
78.39
76.60
69.76
72.68
54.69
73.55
97.78
98.16
60.99
97.53
98.62
98.74
SeVeR
78.39
76.60
80.21
72.67
54.80
78.48
98.77
98.77
98.62
98.76
98.56
98.61
Morphological Characterization
w/o Proto.
57.35
49.50
37.80
53.65
27.92
57.68
73.63
74.42
41.22
73.96
74.78
70.34
Appendix
Table 16: Full task performance under different modality settings (S1–S6). Top : MC accuracy (Acc.) and free-text BLEU. Bottom : free-text ROUGE and BERTScore.
We present NeuroQA, a large-scale benchmark for visual question answering in 3D brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with 56,953 QA pairs from 12,977 subjects across 12 datasets. It spans ages 5-104 and five clinical domains: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, tumors, white matter disease, and neurodevelopment. Unlike prior medical Visual Question Answering (VQA) efforts that operate on 2D slices or rely on narrow diagnostic labels, NeuroQA pairs every item with a full 3D volume. It evaluates 11 clinically grounded reasoning skills across Yes/No, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats. Of the 203 templates, 131 are image-grounded (answerable from a 3-plane viewer) and 72 are image-informed (ground truth from quantitative volumetry or clinical instruments). To remove text-only shortcuts, we apply answer-distribution refinement, reducing closed-format text-only accuracy from >80% to 44.6%; image necessity is assessed separately through an image-grounding protocol released with the benchmark. A 38-rule deterministic pipeline and two rounds of expert review verify every QA pair against FreeSurfer measurements, metadata, or radiology report fields, with zero same-subject contradictions across templates. We conduct a clinician evaluation in which two clinicians independently assess 100 frozen test items on a three-plane viewer. On closed-format (Yes/No + multiple-choice) test-public items, the best zero-shot vision-language model and a supervised 3D CNN baseline reach 47.5% and 43.7% accuracy respectively, both below the 49.4% text-only majority-template floor. NeuroQA adopts a two-tier release with public QA pairs for open-access datasets and reproducible generation scripts for datasets restricted by data use agreements (DUAs), plus subject-level splits, a held-out private test set, and an online leaderboard.
Mohammad H. Abbasi, Favour Nerrise, Shaurnav Ghosh +12
Stanford University · 1Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Medical vision--language models (VLMs) have shown strong potential for medical visual question answering (VQA), yet their reasoning remains largely text-centric: images are encoded once as static context, and subsequent inference is dominated by language. This paradigm is fundamentally limited in clinical scenarios, where accurate answers often depend on subtle, localized visual evidence that cannot be reliably preserved in static embeddings. We propose MedLVR, a latent visual reasoning framework that introduces an explicit visual evidence state into autoregressive decoding. Instead of relying solely on text-based intermediate reasoning, MedLVR interleaves a short latent reasoning segment within the decoder by reusing hidden states as continuous latent steps, enabling iterative preservation and refinement of query-relevant visual evidence before answer generation. To support effective visual supervision, we adopt a two-stage training strategy: region of interest (ROI)-supervised fine-tuning aligns latent states with clinically relevant image evidence, and Visual-Latent Policy Optimization (VLPO) further optimizes latent reasoning and answer generation under outcome-level rewards. Experiments on OmniMedVQA and five external medical VQA benchmarks show that MedLVR consistently outperforms recent reasoning baselines and improves the average score over the Qwen2.5-VL-7B backbone from 48.3% to 53.4%. These results show that latent visual reasoning provides an effective mechanism for preserving diagnostically relevant visual evidence and improving the reliability of medical VQA.
Suyang Xi, Songtao Hu, Yuxiang Lai +4
Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, 30322, GA, USA · Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, 30322, GA, USA
Spatial reasoning and visual grounding are core capabilities for vision-language models (VLMs), yet most medical VLMs produce predictions without transparent reasoning or spatial evidence. Existing benchmarks also evaluate VLMs on isolated 2D images, overlooking the volumetric nature of clinical imaging, where findings can span multiple frames or appear on only a few slices. We introduce Spatially Grounded MRI Visual Question Answering (SGMRI-VQA), a 41,307-pair benchmark for multi-frame, spatially grounded reasoning on volumetric MRI. Built from expert radiologist annotations in the fastMRI+ dataset across brain and knee studies, each QA pair includes a clinician-aligned chain-of-thought trace with frame-indexed bounding box coordinates. Tasks are organized hierarchically across detection, localization, counting/classification, and captioning, requiring models to jointly reason about what is present, where it is, and across which frames it extends. We benchmark 10 VLMs and show that supervised fine-tuning of Qwen3-VL-8B with bounding box supervision consistently improves grounding performance over strong zero-shot baselines, indicating that targeted spatial supervision is an effective path toward grounded clinical reasoning.
Lama Moukheiber, Caleb M. Yeung, Haotian Xue +3
Georgia Institute of Technology · Harvard University · Georgetown University