Few-shot Adaptation of Medical Vision-Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating image and text data through multi-modal learning has emerged as a new approach in medical imaging research, following its successful deployment in computer vision. While considerable efforts have been dedicated to establishing medical foundation models and their zero-shot transfer to downstream tasks, the popular few-shot setting remains relatively unexplored. Following on from the currently strong emergence of this setting in computer vision, we introduce the first structured benchmark for adapting medical vision-language models (VLMs) in a strict few-shot regime and investigate various adaptation strategies commonly used in the context of natural images. Furthermore, we evaluate a simple generalization of the linear-probe adaptation baseline, which seeks an optimal blending of the visual prototypes and text embeddings via learnable class-wise multipliers. Surprisingly, such a text-informed linear probe yields competitive performances in comparison to convoluted prompt-learning and adapter-based strategies, while running considerably faster and accommodating the black-box setting. Our extensive experiments span three different medical modalities and specialized foundation models, nine downstream tasks, and several state-of-the-art few-shot adaptation methods. We made our benchmark and code publicly available to trigger further developments in this emergent subject: \url{https://github.com/FereshteShakeri/few-shot-MedVLMs}.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".