A Reality Check of Vision-Language Pre-training in Radiology: Have We Progressed Using Text?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision-language pre-training has recently gained popularity as it allows learning rich feature representations using large-scale data sources. This paradigm has quickly made its way into the medical image analysis community. In particular, there is an impressive amount of recent literature developing vision-language models for radiology. However, the available medical datasets with image-text supervision are scarce, and medical concepts are fine-grained, involving expert knowledge that existing vision-language models struggle to encode. In this paper, we propose to take a prudent step back from the literature and revisit supervised, unimodal pre-training, using fine-grained labels instead. We conduct an extensive comparison demonstrating that unimodal pre-training is highly competitive and better suited to integrating heterogeneous data sources. Our results also question the potential of recent vision-language models for open-vocabulary generalization, which have been evaluated using optimistic experimental settings. Finally, we study novel alternatives to better integrate fine-grained labels and noisy text supervision.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it