MedQA-MM: Shortcuts Behind Medical Visual Reasoning

High-stakes clinical use of large vision-language models (LVLMs) requires reasoning that is grounded in visual evidence and clinical knowledge, not just correct final answers. We introduce OpenMedReason, a large-scale, open multimodal medical reasoning corpus comprising approximately 450K image-question-answer instances whose reasoning traces are primarily derived from curated biomedical, human-authored scientific articles. OpenMedReason provides high-fidelity supervision beyond synthetic chains of thought, covering diverse medical domain vision modalities such as radiological scans, microscopic images, visible light photographs, charts, and others. We complement it with OpenMedReason-Bench, a held-out benchmark that allows fine-grained evaluation of LVLMs along three complementary axes of capability, including perception, medical knowledge, and rationale, enabling diagnostic evaluation beyond final-answer accuracy. OpenMedReason is a rich training resource that exhibits its effectiveness in both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement-based alignment. Training with OpenMedReason yields a 20% average improvement in VQA accuracy over the base model and achieves performance within 4.2% of the strongest comparable-scale medical LVLMs. Fine-grained performance analysis confirms that the gains are not concentrated in any single axis: OpenMedReason improves perception, medical knowledge, and rationale jointly, and its reasoning traces are preferred over those of the base model in 86.1% of pairwise comparisons. We release the code and dataset at huggingface.co/datasets/neginb/OpenMedReason.

We present our ImageCLEF 2026 Multimodal Reasoning system for the Visual Multiple Choice Question Answering (Visual MCQ) and Visual Open Question Answering (Visual OpenQA) subtasks. The challenge requires reliable reasoning over multilingual educational and scientific images with dense text, diagrams, charts, tables, formulas, and units, while enforcing strict answer formats. Our central finding is that robust output control is as important as model choice. For Visual MCQ, we replace fragile free-form generation with direct candidate label scoring from vision-language model logits, then combine complementary runs through score fusion and voting. For Visual OpenQA, we use image enhancement, concise final answer prompting, deterministic decoding, and targeted post-processing to remove reasoning traces and formatting artifacts. Without task-specific model training, our official submissions achieved third place in Visual MCQ with 0.7108 accuracy and first place in Visual OpenQA with 0.6488 COMET, 0.1391 BLEU, 0.2762 ROUGE L, and 0.2383 METEOR. The results highlight the practical value of inference engineering: careful scoring, ensembling, prompting, and cleanup can turn strong VLMs into reliable competition systems.

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer \emph{semantics} rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0% to 57.5% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number $k$ of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5%) at both $k=0$ and the adapter's training-time $k=1$, 188/200 (94.0%) at the packaged runtime's default $k=3$ --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of $k=3$, selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~\cite{zhao2024ratescore} decrease as $k$ grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant ($p \ge 0.29$); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).