The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2406.06007 · v3 · pith:J2JKZ5GI · submitted 2024-06-10 · cs.LG · cs.CL· cs.CV· cs.CY

CARES: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Trustworthiness in Medical Vision Language Models

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:J2JKZ5GIrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG cs.CLcs.CVcs.CY
keywords medicaltrustworthinessmed-lvlmsacrosscaresmodelsbenchmarkfairness
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence has significantly impacted medical applications, particularly with the advent of Medical Large Vision Language Models (Med-LVLMs), sparking optimism for the future of automated and personalized healthcare. However, the trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs remains unverified, posing significant risks for future model deployment. In this paper, we introduce CARES and aim to comprehensively evaluate the Trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across the medical domain. We assess the trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across five dimensions, including trustfulness, fairness, safety, privacy, and robustness. CARES comprises about 41K question-answer pairs in both closed and open-ended formats, covering 16 medical image modalities and 27 anatomical regions. Our analysis reveals that the models consistently exhibit concerns regarding trustworthiness, often displaying factual inaccuracies and failing to maintain fairness across different demographic groups. Furthermore, they are vulnerable to attacks and demonstrate a lack of privacy awareness. We publicly release our benchmark and code in https://cares-ai.github.io/.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. CXR-ContraBench: Benchmarking Negated-Option Attraction in Medical VLMs

    cs.CV 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    Medical VLMs frequently select negated options that contradict visible chest X-ray findings, achieving only ~30% accuracy on direct presence probes, but a post-hoc consistency verifier raises accuracy above 95%.