mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Clinical Reasoning Under a Partially Observed Objective in Cone Beam CT Report Generation

arXiv 2609.13238 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2026cs.CL cs.CVcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Clinical and biomedical applications

Abstract (arXiv)

Maxillofacial report generation from cone beam computed tomography is scored here by a composite objective placing 80% of its weight on a large language model judgement of factual entailment and 20% on lexical overlap, of which only the lexical fifth is visible during development. The grader's BLEU-4 and METEOR routines are reproduced in pure Python and match the reference to machine precision, and an offline entailment surrogate, which tells a report written for one patient from one written for another at an area under the curve of 0.987, makes the composite objective cheap enough to optimise directly. Over the 622-case public release, a report selected against the visible lexical ranking scores 0.2909, whereas one selected against the composite objective scores 0.4122, because pursuing n-gram overlap drives entailment precision from 0.522 down to 0.266. A 29 million parameter encoder fine-tuned on the release reaches a prevalence-weighted out-of-fold area under the curve of 0.486 over 985 statements, indistinguishable from the corpus prior, while nine numbers read from the image header reach 0.945 for mandible coverage and 0.872 for condyle coverage, and acquisition centre alone predicts sentence choice at 0.718 against 0.663 for the image-derived model, identifying dictation convention rather than anatomy as the quantity the lexical metrics reward. The delivered system emits eight unconditional statements and five gated on header geometry under polarity, laterality and tooth-level consistency constraints, and reaches METEOR 0.3542 over 50 held-out cases from an unseen centre. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/GIND123/CBCT-Clinical-Reasoner

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 6 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

Builds on

6 of 22 references.

References · 6

  1. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
  2. 2018Attention-based Deep Multiple Instance Learningcited by 1,095
  3. 2020Asymmetric Loss For Multi-Label Classificationcited by 381
  4. 2024MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generationcited by 145
  5. 2018Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with carecited by 91
  6. 2019BIAS: Transparent reporting of biomedical image analysis challengescited by 57

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Toward Guarantees for Clinical Reasoning in Vision Language Models via Formal Verification
  2. 2025Clinically Grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation: An Interpretable Metric for Radiology Report Generation
  3. 2023Consensus, dissensus and synergy between clinicians and specialist foundation models in radiology report generation
  4. 2025Evaluating Reasoning Faithfulness in Medical Vision-Language Models using Multimodal Perturbations
  5. 2025Visual Alignment of Medical Vision-Language Models for Grounded Radiology Report Generation
  6. 2025RadHiera: Semantic Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Medical Report Generation
  7. 2025CLARIFID: Improving Radiology Report Generation by Reinforcing Clinically Accurate Impressions and Enforcing Detailed Findings
  8. 2023MAIRA-1: A specialised large multimodal model for radiology report generation