ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2025
"Why Is There a Tumor?": Tell Me the Reason, Show Me the Evidence.
Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical AI models excel at tumor detection and segmentation. However, their latent representations often lack explicit ties to clinical semantics, producing outputs less trusted in clinical practice. Most of the existing models generate either segmentation masks/labels (localizing where without why) or textual justifications (explaining why without where), failing to ground clinical concepts in spatially localized evidence. To bridge this gap, we propose to develop models that can justify the segmentation or detection using clinically relevant terms and point to visual evidence. We address two core challenges: First, we curate a rationale dataset to tackle the lack of paired images, annotations, and textual rationales for training. The dataset includes 180K image-mask-rationale triples with quality evaluated by expert radiologists. Second, we design rationale-informed optimization that disentangles and localizes fine-grained clinical concepts in a self-supervised manner without requiring pixel-level concept annotations. Experiments across medical benchmarks show our model demonstrates superior performance in segmentation, detection, and beyond. The code is available at https://github.com/deep-real/MedRationale.
Identifiers
42079391PMC13131034What 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.