SHIFT-M3: Pre-fusion Alignment-based Consistency Screening for Multimodal ECG Record Integrity

While multimodal large language models offer a promising solution to the "black box" nature of health AI by generating interpretable reasoning traces, verifying the validity of these traces remains a critical challenge. Existing evaluation methods are either unscalable, relying on manual clinician review, or superficial, utilizing proxy metrics (e.g. QA) that fail to capture the semantic correctness of clinical logic. In this work, we introduce a reproducible framework for evaluating reasoning in ECG signals. We propose decomposing reasoning into two distinct, components: (i) Perception, the accurate identification of patterns within the raw signal, and (ii) Deduction, the logical application of domain knowledge to those patterns. To evaluate Perception, we employ an agentic framework that generates code to empirically verify the temporal structures described in the reasoning trace. To evaluate Deduction, we measure the alignment of the model's logic against a structured database of established clinical criteria in a retrieval-based approach. This dual-verification method enables the scalable assessment of "true" reasoning capabilities.

Multimodal clinical models are usually judged on accuracy with every modality present, but deployment removes modalities; an echocardiogram is often unavailable where an ECG is routine. Two questions then matter beyond the size of the accuracy loss: which modality was responsible, and whether the model fails loudly or silently once that modality is dropped. The distinction is per-example and modality-level, and is separate from post-hoc feature attribution (e.g. SHAP). Models are replaced often; the evaluation that answers these questions is reused. We present a model-agnostic modality-failure framework: given N modality embeddings, any mask-aware probe, and labels, it returns a per-example failure taxonomy, a per-modality complementarity matrix that attributes error to modalities, and a loud-vs-silent dropout profile separating monitorable failures from those that pass unflagged far from the decision boundary, using only deployment-observable signals. We release it as a small, unit-tested harness and validate it against planted ground truth. Across seeds it recovers that planted modality dominance and complementary subset, reports per-modality loud-vs-silent rates, and scales to a three-modality complementarity matrix; because the planted structure is known by construction, this validates recovery of per-example attribution rather than clinical performance. We then instantiate the framework on frozen EchoJEPA and HuBERT-ECG embeddings for LVEF and the EF <= 40% HFrEF gate over a paired MIMIC-IV cohort, where on the held-out test split (n = 245) dropping echo nearly doubles error. The narrow echo-to-ECG overlap that bounds cohort size is itself a deployment finding for cardiac foundation models. All of our work can be found at https://github.com/criticaldata/PRIMED-AI.

Machine learning holds promise for advancing clinical decision support, yet it remains unclear when multimodal learning truly helps in practice, particularly under modality missingness and fairness constraints. In this work, we conduct a systematic benchmark of multimodal fusion between Electronic Health Records (EHR) and chest X-rays (CXR) on standardized cohorts from MIMIC-IV and MIMIC-CXR, aiming to answer four fundamental questions: when multimodal fusion improves clinical prediction, how different fusion strategies compare, how robust existing methods are to missing modalities, and whether multimodal models achieve algorithmic fairness. Our study reveals several key insights. Multimodal fusion improves performance when modalities are complete, with gains concentrating in diseases that require complementary information from both EHR and CXR. While cross-modal learning mechanisms capture clinically meaningful dependencies beyond simple concatenation, the rich temporal structure of EHR introduces strong modality imbalance that architectural complexity alone cannot overcome. Under realistic missingness, multimodal benefits rapidly degrade unless models are explicitly designed to handle incomplete inputs. Moreover, multimodal fusion does not inherently improve fairness, with subgroup disparities mainly arising from unequal sensitivity across demographic groups. To support reproducible and extensible evaluation, we further release a flexible benchmarking toolkit that enables plug-and-play integration of new models and datasets. Together, this work provides actionable guidance on when multimodal learning helps, when it fails, and why, laying the foundation for developing clinically deployable multimodal systems that are both effective and reliable. The open-source toolkit can be found at https://github.com/jakeykj/CareBench.