Tyagi, Abhishek, Jain, Tanmay, Biradar, Vilas, Koduri, Krithi Krishna, Masoodi, Misba Hul Bashir, Rapolu, Swetha, Rughwani, Hardik, Kotha, Rachana, Kaipa, Anjan Kumar, Katrevula, Anudeep, Garlapati, Rakesh, Singh, Aniruddha Pratap, Patel, Rajendra, Tyagi, Abhay, Lakhtakia, Sundeep, Ramchandani, Mohan, Kalapala, Rakesh, Reddy, D. Nageshwar · Nov 7, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: EndoSCOP-V Evaluates Multimodal Models on Endoscopy Video
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The authors introduce EndoSCOP-V, a framework for evaluating whether can follow endoscopy video across multiple turns of clinical reasoning. They argue that static-image and single-disease video miss the temporal reasoning involved in reporting findings such as location, morphology, severity and intervention. The framework uses 1,307 real-world videos and 20,274 question-answer turns derived from clinician-filled structured reports. In their evaluation, a panel of 15 board-certified endoscopists reached 78% strict accuracy on 1,500 questions; the best 27B-class reached 59.8%, or 53.4% when format-trivial disease-rejection items were excluded. The authors also report gaps in quantitative measurement, multi-variable grading and intervention reasoning on long-horizon video. As an Escape Meridian interpretation, these results alone do not establish how models would perform in clinical use.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 7, 2026 (2026-11-07).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T09:32:47.448Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:39:45.651Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T09:31:04.532Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
As an Escape Meridian interpretation, the supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract; it does not establish how performance translates to clinical use. The frontier proprietary-model comparison is described as a between-subjects spot-check, so it should not be read as a direct comprehensive comparison.
Open question
Would the reported model gaps persist on endoscopy videos and reporting questions outside EndoSCOP-V?
Source-stated
The authors present EndoSCOP-V as a multi-turn evaluation framework for video-grounded endoscopy reporting and clinical reasoning.
We introduce EndoSCOP-V, a video-grounded multi-turn evaluation framework for structured endoscopy reporting and clinical reasoning.
Source-stated
The benchmark contains 1,307 endoscopy and colonoscopy videos and 20,274 question-answer turns derived from clinician-filled structured reports.
It contains 1,307 real-world endoscopy and colonoscopy videos (63.2 h; 97% 1080p) averaging about 174 s. Its 20,274 question-answer turns are instantiated deterministically from clinician-filled structured endoscopy-reporting EHRs
Source-stated
On the reported evaluation, the clinician panel reached 78% strict accuracy, while the best 27B-class open-weight model reached 59.8%, falling to 53.4% after excluding format-trivial disease-rejection items.
A panel of 15 board-certified endoscopists sets a 78% strict-accuracy baseline on 1,500 questions. Across 14 open-weight LMMs, the best 27B-class model reaches 59.8% strict accuracy, falling to 53.4% once format-trivial disease-rejection items are excluded.
Source-stated
The authors report gaps in quantitative measurement, multi-variable grading and intervention reasoning on long-horizon video.
Sub-task analysis reveals consistent gaps in quantitative measurement, multi-variable grading and intervention reasoning on long-horizon video.
Source and contributor context
Tyagi, Abhishek, Jain, Tanmay, Biradar, Vilas, Koduri, Krithi Krishna, Masoodi, Misba Hul Bashir, Rapolu, Swetha, Rughwani, Hardik, Kotha, Rachana, Kaipa, Anjan Kumar, Katrevula, Anudeep, Garlapati, Rakesh, Singh, Aniruddha Pratap, Patel, Rajendra, Tyagi, Abhay, Lakhtakia, Sundeep, Ramchandani, Mohan, Kalapala, Rakesh, Reddy, D. Nageshwar · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Multimodal model
A model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Open weights
A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 10ad1866-ce49-4a2f-8c5b-49c1cf50f5ca.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T09:32:47.448Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: a89becf2e689fad350161562a2566636c07d9cb73f2b63a5d16920665c35940c. Source text hash: bb426e81a5aed60c1a076f92602b213d3af9b1a75b11bbfd5d24f822a973b75c.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-12T09:32:47.448Z
arXiv cs.AI: EndoSCOP-V Evaluates Multimodal Models on Endoscopy Video
The authors introduce EndoSCOP-V, a framework for evaluating whether can follow endoscopy video across multiple turns of clinical reasoning. They argue that static-image and single-disease video miss the temporal reasoning involved in reporting findings such as location, morphology, severity and intervention. The framework uses 1,307 real-world videos and 20,274 question-answer turns derived from clinician-filled structured reports. In their evaluation, a panel of 15 board-certified endoscopists reached 78% strict accuracy on 1,500 questions; the best 27B-class reached 59.8%, or 53.4% when format-trivial disease-rejection items were excluded. The authors also report gaps in quantitative measurement, multi-variable grading and intervention reasoning on long-horizon video. As an Escape Meridian interpretation, these results alone do not establish how models would perform in clinical use.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 7, 2026 (2026-11-07).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T09:32:47.448Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:39:45.651Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T09:31:04.532Z.
Limits
As an Escape Meridian interpretation, the supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract; it does not establish how performance translates to clinical use. The frontier proprietary-model comparison is described as a between-subjects spot-check, so it should not be read as a direct comprehensive comparison.
Open question
Would the reported model gaps persist on endoscopy videos and reporting questions outside EndoSCOP-V?
Source-stated
The authors present EndoSCOP-V as a multi-turn evaluation framework for video-grounded endoscopy reporting and clinical reasoning.
We introduce EndoSCOP-V, a video-grounded multi-turn evaluation framework for structured endoscopy reporting and clinical reasoning.
Source-stated
The benchmark contains 1,307 endoscopy and colonoscopy videos and 20,274 question-answer turns derived from clinician-filled structured reports.
It contains 1,307 real-world endoscopy and colonoscopy videos (63.2 h; 97% 1080p) averaging about 174 s. Its 20,274 question-answer turns are instantiated deterministically from clinician-filled structured endoscopy-reporting EHRs
Source-stated
On the reported evaluation, the clinician panel reached 78% strict accuracy, while the best 27B-class open-weight model reached 59.8%, falling to 53.4% after excluding format-trivial disease-rejection items.
A panel of 15 board-certified endoscopists sets a 78% strict-accuracy baseline on 1,500 questions. Across 14 open-weight LMMs, the best 27B-class model reaches 59.8% strict accuracy, falling to 53.4% once format-trivial disease-rejection items are excluded.
Source-stated
The authors report gaps in quantitative measurement, multi-variable grading and intervention reasoning on long-horizon video.
Sub-task analysis reveals consistent gaps in quantitative measurement, multi-variable grading and intervention reasoning on long-horizon video.
Source and contributor context
Tyagi, Abhishek, Jain, Tanmay, Biradar, Vilas, Koduri, Krithi Krishna, Masoodi, Misba Hul Bashir, Rapolu, Swetha, Rughwani, Hardik, Kotha, Rachana, Kaipa, Anjan Kumar, Katrevula, Anudeep, Garlapati, Rakesh, Singh, Aniruddha Pratap, Patel, Rajendra, Tyagi, Abhay, Lakhtakia, Sundeep, Ramchandani, Mohan, Kalapala, Rakesh, Reddy, D. Nageshwar · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Multimodal model
A model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Open weights
A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 10ad1866-ce49-4a2f-8c5b-49c1cf50f5ca.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T09:32:47.448Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: a89becf2e689fad350161562a2566636c07d9cb73f2b63a5d16920665c35940c. Source text hash: bb426e81a5aed60c1a076f92602b213d3af9b1a75b11bbfd5d24f822a973b75c.
uncertain · 2026-11-12T09:32:47.448Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 10ad1866-ce49-4a2f-8c5b-49c1cf50f5ca
attribution — pass: The draft attributes the framework, data and results to the paper's authors via arXiv. Phrases such as 'The authors introduce', 'They argue' and 'In their evaluation' keep benchmark results as the source's claims. The Escape Meridian interpretation is clearly labeled.
We introduce EndoSCOP-V, a video-grounded multi-turn evaluation framework for structured endoscopy reporting and clinical reasoning.
summary — uncertain: The reported figures are accurate, but the summary leaves out a headline result. The frontier proprietary models also trail the clinicians, by 23 percentage points; the draft mentions that comparison only as a limitation and never states the gap. That leaves general readers unsure whether the gap applies only to smaller open models. Smallest repair: add one sentence noting the best of 3 frontier proprietary models trailed the clinician panel by 23 pp in a spot-check. Central terms such as 'multimodal models', '27B-class', 'open-weight' and 'strict accuracy' are unexplained and should get term-library tooltips.
On a between-subjects spot-check, the best of 3 frontier proprietary models trails the clinician panel by 23 pp on strict NDR accuracy.
date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-11-07 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. It is not the later feed date of 2026-11-10.
[Submitted on 7 Nov 2026]
support — pass: All four claims quote the abstract accurately. The limitation about the spot-check follows from the source's own wording. The claim that benchmark results do not establish clinical performance is labeled as Escape Meridian interpretation and does not overstate. The question about generalization is open and not leading. No benefits or costs are invented.
A panel of 15 board-certified endoscopists sets a 78% strict-accuracy baseline on 1,500 questions.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page. It matches the source URL and is the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference