ModaLens: Measuring Image Sensitivity in Report-Conditioned Medical VLMs

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 (VLMs) are increasingly proposed for clinical decision support, yet their reliability in real-world scenarios that require integrating both visual and textual context from medical records remains poorly characterized. This paper identifies three failure modes: (1) modality over-reliance on text over images, (2) spurious reliance on irrelevant clinical history, and (3) prompt sensitivity across semantically equivalent inputs. We evaluate a diverse set of general-domain and medically-tuned open and closed VLMs on chest x-ray tasks using MIMIC-CXR. By systematically manipulating image-text alignment, clinical history, and prompt formulations, we found that VLM decisions are dominated by the text modality, even when visual evidence is available. Moreover, we observed that VLMs are heavily influenced by irrelevant reports, while minor prompt changes can reverse correct image-based predictions. Our findings underscore the need for explicit safeguards and stress-testing before considering the use of these models in clinical practice.

Evaluating vision-language models (VLMs) on medical images requires benchmarks that are clinically grounded, scalable, and controlled for evaluation confounds. Existing public benchmarks are limited in scale, manually annotated, or potentially leaked into VLM pretraining corpora. We present an automated agent-driven pipeline that generates multiple-choice VQA datasets directly from paired private radiology reports and 3D oncology imaging, producing two complementary question types: RADS-style questions deterministically derived from clinician-defined reporting schemas, and radiology report-derived questions generated by an LLM from radiologist findings and verified against the source report. Applied to four in-house cancer cohorts, the pipeline yields an instance-contamination-controlled benchmark without per-question human annotation. Zero-shot evaluation of six VLMs reveals no dominant model and substantial headroom across all cells. A blind ablation reveals that visual reliance is highly dataset-specific: liver Report-derived questions genuinely require the image, while Lung CT is essentially solvable without it - the leading closed model exceeds its sighted accuracy on Lung CT when blinded - indicating that even private clinical data does not guarantee a contamination-controlled read of visual capability. The pipeline is released as an open agent skill for in-house redeployment.