Artificial Intelligence · 25.08.2026, 11:46 UTC
A Source-Grounded Framework for Constructing and Evaluating Progressive Multimodal Diagnostic Dialogues from Clinical Case Reports
| Schweregrad | info |
|---|---|
| Kategorie | Artificial Intelligence |
| Quelle | arXiv cs.CL ↗ |
| Veröffentlicht | 25.08.2026 UTC |
Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.
arXiv:2608.22713v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical diagnosis requires progressive integration of patient history, physical examination, laboratory findings, medical images, and diagnostic-informative tests. However, most multimodal medical benchmarks evaluate fixed inputs or endpoint answers, while fully interactive diagnostic agents conflate evidence selection with evidence interpretation. We present a source-grounded framework to construct progressive multimodal diagnostic dialogues from case reports and an evaluation strategy for assessing MLLMs on final diagnosis, diagnostic reasoning, and image-finding interpretation. Evaluation on 24 internal medicine case reports showed that our framework can accurately convert case reports into reference dialogues, achieving a diagnosis F1 of 0.99 and a reasoning-quality score of 4.79 out of 5. Evaluation on two frontier MLLMs (o4-mini and Claude Haiku 4.5) achieved reasoning-quality scores of 2.75 and 2.50, respectively, with substantially lower diagnosis, reasoning, and image-finding F1 scores. The results demonstrate that fluent responses do not necessarily reflect evidence-grounded clinical reasoning and highlight the utility of the proposed framework for evaluating multimodal diagnostic reasoning.
Maßnahmen
⬇ Als MarkdownVerwandte Beiträge
- info Multi-Agent Orchestration with the Common-Sense Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs for Autonomous Driving
- info Decomposition Attacks Across Unlinkable Identities: Limits of Stateful Defenses for LLM Services
- info Towards Understanding On-Policy Distillation through the Lens of Test-Time Scaling
- info Do LLM Recommenders Know When They're Hallucinating? Auditing Confidence Calibration in Catalog Faithfulness