ArticleIEEE transactions on medical imaging2026
Med-R1: Reinforcement Learning for Generalizable Medical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models.
Article in IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Lightweight RGB Vision-Based Express Parcel Detection Framework with Active Learning and Quantization-Aware Training.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Alignment Paradox of Medical Large Language Models in Infertility Care: Decoupling Algorithmic Improvement From Clinical Decision-Making Quality.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Model and Task-Aware Test-Time Scaling Strategies for Large Language and Vision-Language Models in Medicine: Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Advancing radiology foundation models with reasoning through step-by-step verification from daily reports.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Ground Mobile Robots for High-Throughput Plant Phenotyping: A Review from the Closed-Loop Perspective of Perception, Decision, and Action.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- EchoAtlas: A Conversational, Multi-View Vision-Language Foundation Model for Echocardiography Interpretation and Clinical Reasoning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Benchmark evaluation of multi-modal large language models for ophthalmic diagnosis in real world.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Critique of impure reason: Unveiling the reasoning behaviour of medical large language models.eLife · 2025Article
- Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved impressive progress in natural image reasoning, yet their potential in medical imaging remains underexplored. Medical vision-language tasks demand precise understanding and clinically coherent answers, which are difficult to achieve due to complexity of medical data and the scarcity of high-quality expert annotations. These challenges limit the effectiveness of conventional supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) strategies that work well in general domains. To address these challenges, we propose Med-R1, a reinforcement learning (RL)-enhanced VLM designed to improve generalization and reliability in medical reasoning. Med-R1 adopts Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to encourage reward-guided learning beyond static annotations. We comprehensively evaluate Med-R1 across eight distinct medical imaging modalities. Med-R1 achieves a 29.94% improvement in average accuracy over its base model Qwen2-VL-2B, and even outperforms Qwen2-VL-72B-a model with $36\times $ more parameters. To assess cross-task generalization, we further evaluate Med-R1 on five question types. Med-R1 outperforms Qwen2-VL-2B by 32.06% in question-type generalization, also surpassing Qwen2-VL-72B. We further explore the thinking process in Med-R1, a crucial component of Deepseek-R1. Our results show that omitting intermediate rationales (No-Thinking Med-R1) not only improves cross-domain generalization with less training, but also challenges the common assumption that more reasoning always helps. Nevertheless, we also find that the Think-After Med-R1 variant further improves performance while maintaining interpretability. These findings suggest that, in medical VQA, the mere presence of explicit reasoning does not guarantee better performance. Instead, performance depends on the quality of the reasoning and the position where the reasoning is generated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.