# Infection-Reasoner: A Compact Vision-Language Model for Wound Infection Classification with Evidence-Grounded Clinical Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19937 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19937/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Clinical and biomedical applications, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 16 of its 70 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Clinical and biomedical applications](https://mlsanity.com/lr/clinical-and-biomedical-applications/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Medical vision-language models](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/medical-vision-language-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [LLaVA-Med: Training a Large Language-and-Vision Assistant for Biomedicine in One Day](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00890/) (2023)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Large Language Models with One Training Example](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.20571/) (2025)
- [Capabilities of Gemini Models in Medicine](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18416/) (2024)
- [Lingshu: A Generalist Foundation Model for Unified Multimodal Medical Understanding and Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07044/) (2025)
- [Llama-Nemotron: Efficient Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00949/) (2025)
- [Med-RLVR: Emerging Medical Reasoning from a 3B base model via reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19655/) (2025)
- [Detect-and-Segment: a Deep Learning Approach to Automate Wound Image Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.01590/) (2021)
- [Deepwound: Automated Postoperative Wound Assessment and Surgical Site Surveillance through Convolutional Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.04355/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Assessing chronic wound infection from photographs is challenging because visual appearance varies across wound etiologies, anatomical locations, and imaging conditions. Prior image-based deep learning methods have mainly focused on classification with limited interpretability, despite the need for evidence-grounded explanations to support point-of-care decision making. We present Infection-Reasoner, a compact 4B-parameter reasoning vision-language model for chronic wound infection classification and rationale generation. To address the scarcity of expert-labeled wound images with reasoning annotations, Infection-Reasoner is trained using a two-stage pipeline: (1) reasoning distillation, in which GPT-5.1 generates chain-of-thought rationales for unlabeled wound images to initialize wound-specific reasoning in a smaller student model (Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking), and (2) reinforcement learning post-training with Group Relative Policy Optimization on a small labeled infection dataset to refine classification reasoning. On a held-out heterogeneous wound dataset, Infection-Reasoner achieved 86.8% accuracy, 86.4% sensitivity, and 87.1% specificity, outperforming several strong baselines, including GPT-5.1. Rationale quality was further evaluated using both multimodal large language model (MLLM) judges and wound expert review. Across four MLLM judges, visual-support agreement scores ranged from 0.722 to 0.903, while expert review rated 61.8% of rationales as Correct and 32.4% as Partially Correct.