Clinical Knowledge Graphs for Chest X-Ray Device Reasoning

Chest X-ray interpretation is one of the most frequently performed diagnostic tasks in medicine and a primary target for AI development, yet current vision-language models are primarily trained on datasets of paired images and reports, not the cognitive processes and visual attention that underlie clinical reasoning. Here, we present CheXthought, a global, multimodal resource containing 103,592 chain-of-thought reasoning traces and 6,609,082 synchronized visual attention annotations across 50,312 multi-read chest X-rays from 501 radiologists in 71 countries. Our analysis reveals clinical reasoning patterns in how experts deploy distinct visual search strategies, integrate clinical context, and communicate uncertainty. We demonstrate the clinical utility of CheXthought across four dimensions. First, CheXthought reasoning significantly outperforms state-of-the-art vision-language model chain-of-thought in factual accuracy and spatial grounding. Second, visual attention data used as an inference-time hint recovers missed findings and significantly reduces hallucinations. Third, vision-language models trained on CheXthought data achieve significantly stronger pathology classification, visual faithfulness, temporal reasoning and uncertainty communication. Fourth, leveraging CheXthought's multi-reader annotations, we predict both human-human and human-AI disagreement directly from an image, enabling transparent communication of case difficulty, uncertainty and model reliability. These findings establish CheXthought as a resource for advancing multimodal clinical reasoning and the development of more transparent, interpretable vision-language models.

Vision-language models that answer questions about chest radiographs are evaluated by their accuracy on labels derived from radiology reports. High benchmark accuracy is often interpreted as evidence that the model uses the image. A model that answers from the finding named in the question can score as well as a model that uses the radiograph. Keeping the question fixed, we audit eight open-weight systems by swapping in another patient's radiograph with the same or the opposite label, occluding the radiologist-marked region or an equal region elsewhere, and removing the radiograph or replacing it with noise or a photograph. On 2,548 yes-or-no questions from MIMIC-CXR, one multimodal model answers Yes regardless of the image, another multimodal model changes its answers without following the label, and four systems use the image but keep about half of their correct answers when the radiograph is swapped for an opposite-label radiograph. A medical model that receives only the question text scores 55.3% on the pooled questions, higher than two multimodal systems. It scores 91.8% where every finding is present, and answering Yes to every question scores 100% there. Where the image is necessary, the best multimodal system exceeds this model by 10.4% in balanced accuracy. The categories are unchanged on CheXpert. Confidence is not higher when a correct answer depends on the marked region. In a reader study with three radiologists, the two radiologists who read a balanced set of 200 cases score 86.0% and 82.0%, and the systems score 50.0% to 73.0%. Accuracy does not establish image use, but an intervention on the image can test it.

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) show promise in medical applications, but their inability to faithfully ground responses in visual evidence raises serious concerns about clinical trustworthiness. While visual attribution methods are widely used to explain LVLM predictions, whether these explanations actually reflect the visual evidence underlying the model's decision is largely unverified, since ground-truth annotations for internal model reasoning are typically unavailable. We address this question for chest X-ray (CXR) reasoning by developing a causal evaluation framework that retains only CXR-VQA samples for which the expert-annotated region is verified, via counterfactual editing, to be causally responsible for the model's prediction. Using this framework across 11 attribution methods, six open-source LVLMs, and two output modes (direct answer and step-by-step reasoning), we find that existing attribution methods often fail to identify the evidence used by LVLMs. To address this failure, we propose MedFocus, a concept-based attribution method that localizes clinically meaningful anatomical regions via unbalanced optimal transport and measures their causal effect on model outputs through targeted interventions. MedFocus produces spatial, concept-level, and token-level attributions and substantially outperforms prior methods, taking a step toward more trustworthy attribution for medical LVLMs. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/gzxiong/medfocus/.