S. Ziegelmayer
Publications
Self-supervision drives representational convergence in medical foundation models more than clinical supervision
Medical image encoders from different groups are increasingly treated as interchangeable, on the assumption that scale and clinical supervision concentrate their representations onto a shared structure. Whether this convergence is real, what produces it, and whether it is clinically usable are untested, and the similarity measures behind such claims are fragile. We present a controlled dissection across 18 image and 7 text encoders, all open-weight and run locally, spanning 7M to 27B parameters and five imaging modalities, including 650,982 chest radiographs from six datasets. To isolate cause, we train encoders that vary only the objective under fixed data, architecture, and scale, and reproduce the effect in a synthetic model. Convergence is modest but above a random floor, driven by the self-supervised objective, not clinical supervision: matched self-supervised encoders aligned most (40.4% on chest radiography), with label-supervised (21.1%) and image-text (3.3%) far lower, and did not grow with size (Spearman 0.302, p=0.223) or capability. It is within-modality, does not reach clinical language, and does not reproduce how radiologists judge case similarity. Yet a linear classifier transfers across encoders and to five held-out hospitals, retaining about 85% of within-encoder performance. Convergence in medical imaging is therefore set by the pretraining objective, not inherited from scale or clinical supervision. Interoperability is accordingly something to design for through that objective, and to validate where the shared geometry is weakest, across patient subgroups and against clinical judgment.
Vision-language models for chest radiography do not always need the image
Medical vision-language models report strong chest radiograph accuracy, and this is increasingly read as evidence that they use the image. That inference is unsafe: a model exploiting finding-name priors scores like one that reads the scan, and no standard benchmark separates them. We introduce a causal audit that intervenes on the image, occluding the relevant region, occluding an irrelevant one, and swapping in another patient's same-label scan, and combines three behavioral metrics to test whether a correct answer depends on the image. Across nine systems, a text-only model with no image access reaches within 5.7 accuracy points of the best multimodal one, and a 119-billion-parameter multimodal model is statistically indistinguishable from a 7-billion text-only baseline. The audit splits the cohort into three models that ignore the image, one that is unstable, and five that use it selectively, for a subset of findings; the categories hold across a second dataset, resolution, and prompt phrasing. Against board-certified radiologists, a text-only model is statistically indistinguishable from a radiologist's accuracy while grounding at zero, whereas the image-using models ground at radiologist-comparable rates. Reported confidence flags ungrounded answers only when a model uses the image. Grounding audits, not accuracy, should gate clinical deployment.
Atomic Fact-Checking Increases Clinician Trust in Large Language Model Recommendations for Oncology Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.
Agentic clinical reasoning over longitudinal myeloma records: a retrospective evaluation against expert consensus
Multiple myeloma is managed through sequential lines of therapy over years to decades, with each decision depending on cumulative disease history distributed across dozens to hundreds of heterogeneous clinical documents. Whether LLM-based systems can synthesise this evidence at a level approaching expert agreement has not been established. A retrospective evaluation was conducted on longitudinal clinical records of 811 myeloma patients treated at a tertiary centre (2001-2026), covering 44,962 documents and 1,334,677 laboratory values, with external validation on MIMIC-IV. An agentic reasoning system was compared against single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), iterative RAG, and full-context input on 469 patient-question pairs from 48 templates at three complexity levels. Reference labels came from double annotation by four oncologists with senior haematologist adjudication. Iterative RAG and full-context input converged on a shared ceiling (75.4% vs 75.8%, p = 1.00). The agentic system reached 79.6% concordance (95% CI 76.4-82.8), exceeding both baselines (+3.8 and +4.2 pp; p = 0.006 and 0.007). Gains rose with question complexity, reaching +9.4 pp on criteria-based synthesis (p = 0.032), and with record length, reaching +13.5 pp in the top decile (n = 10). The system error rate (12.2%) was comparable to expert disagreement (13.6%), but severity was inverted: 57.8% of system errors were clinically significant versus 18.8% of expert disagreements. Agentic reasoning was the only approach to exceed the shared ceiling, with gains concentrated on the most complex questions and longest records. The greater clinical consequence of residual system errors indicates that prospective evaluation in routine care is required before these findings translate into patient benefit.