Huang, Chentao, Lin, Runlong, Wang, Zhijun, Li, Yunxiang, Sun, Yuanyuan, Wang, Jian, Lin, Hongfei, Luo, Ling · Nov 10, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Interleaving anatomical inspection and diagnostic reasoning for explainable radiology report generation
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The authors introduce ARIVE (Anatomy-guided Reasoning with Interleaved Visual Evidence), a framework that interleaves anatomical inspection and diagnostic reasoning before composing radiology reports. They argue this makes the pathway from visual evidence to reported findings more traceable. The framework addresses a problem they identify in automated report generation: clinically plausible reports can still have an opaque diagnostic basis, making them difficult to review or revise. The authors trained ARIVE on 159,416 (MCoT) trajectories from MIMIC-CXR, then further optimized it using anatomical and clinical-content rewards. They report superior clinical-efficacy performance to strong baselines on MIMIC-CXR and MIMIC-ABN, competitive reports in blinded expert grading, and high ratings for diagnostic traceability of its MCoT trajectories. A paired review evaluation, they say, suggests that access to MCoT can aid in identifying errors in generated reports. The work’s practical promise is not simply producing plausible text, but making its diagnostic basis easier to inspect; the abstract does not establish how this affects clinical use. Further detail on the evaluations is needed to judge the strength and scope of the reported results.
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 10, 2026 (2026-11-10).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T23:18:46.702Z. First observed: 2026-11-11T05:05:04.933Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-11T23:17:58.046Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The evidence is the abstract; it does not provide the evaluation methods, numerical results, or details of the paired review evaluation. The reported results concern MIMIC-CXR, MIMIC-ABN, blinded expert grading, and ratings of MCoT trajectories; the abstract does not establish effects in clinical use.
Open question
In the paired review evaluation, what kinds of errors did access to MCoT help reviewers identify, and how often?
Source-stated
The authors propose ARIVE, which interleaves anatomical inspection and diagnostic reasoning before composing a report.
We introduce ARIVE (Anatomy-guided Reasoning with Interleaved Visual Evidence), an explainable report generation framework that interleaves anatomical inspection with diagnostic reasoning prior to final report composition.
Source-stated
The authors say the framework addresses the opaque diagnostic basis of generated reports, which can make them difficult to review or revise.
the pathway from visual evidence to reported findings remains opaque, leaving the diagnostic basis of these reports unexplained and the generated reports difficult to review or revise.
Source-stated
The authors constructed 159,416 multimodal chain-of-thought (MCoT) trajectories from MIMIC-CXR for the process.
we constructed 159,416 multimodal chain-of-thought (MCoT) trajectories from MIMIC-CXR
Source-stated
The authors report superior clinical-efficacy performance to strong baselines on MIMIC-CXR and MIMIC-ABN.
ARIVE achieved superior clinical-efficacy performance compared with strong baselines on MIMIC-CXR and the abnormality-centered MIMIC-ABN.
Source-stated
The authors report that access to MCoT may help identify errors in generated reports, based on a paired review evaluation.
a paired review evaluation suggests that access to MCoT can aid in identifying errors within generated reports.
Source and contributor context
Huang, Chentao, Lin, Runlong, Wang, Zhijun, Li, Yunxiang, Sun, Yuanyuan, Wang, Jian, Lin, Hongfei, Luo, Ling · 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.
Chain of thought
The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
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: 4b7a9d33-6ecf-4637-8ff9-6ffb39b2f308.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T23:18:46.702Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 34e757eaf0d0d5ab5e2e8a50806eb3bc3a6c09ca47530ebf8ea05d81c33c6258. Source text hash: 56439c9dcf6133937c7c5f1e84f1b974dcc6e49d84ccd6e8668f21f006af38ce.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-11T23:18:46.702Z
arXiv cs.AI: Interleaving anatomical inspection and diagnostic reasoning for explainable radiology report generation
The authors introduce ARIVE (Anatomy-guided Reasoning with Interleaved Visual Evidence), a framework that interleaves anatomical inspection and diagnostic reasoning before composing radiology reports. They argue this makes the pathway from visual evidence to reported findings more traceable. The framework addresses a problem they identify in automated report generation: clinically plausible reports can still have an opaque diagnostic basis, making them difficult to review or revise. The authors trained ARIVE on 159,416 (MCoT) trajectories from MIMIC-CXR, then further optimized it using anatomical and clinical-content rewards. They report superior clinical-efficacy performance to strong baselines on MIMIC-CXR and MIMIC-ABN, competitive reports in blinded expert grading, and high ratings for diagnostic traceability of its MCoT trajectories. A paired review evaluation, they say, suggests that access to MCoT can aid in identifying errors in generated reports. The work’s practical promise is not simply producing plausible text, but making its diagnostic basis easier to inspect; the abstract does not establish how this affects clinical use. Further detail on the evaluations is needed to judge the strength and scope of the reported results.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 10, 2026 (2026-11-10).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T23:18:46.702Z. First observed: 2026-11-11T05:05:04.933Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-11T23:17:58.046Z.
Limits
The evidence is the abstract; it does not provide the evaluation methods, numerical results, or details of the paired review evaluation. The reported results concern MIMIC-CXR, MIMIC-ABN, blinded expert grading, and ratings of MCoT trajectories; the abstract does not establish effects in clinical use.
Open question
In the paired review evaluation, what kinds of errors did access to MCoT help reviewers identify, and how often?
Source-stated
The authors propose ARIVE, which interleaves anatomical inspection and diagnostic reasoning before composing a report.
We introduce ARIVE (Anatomy-guided Reasoning with Interleaved Visual Evidence), an explainable report generation framework that interleaves anatomical inspection with diagnostic reasoning prior to final report composition.
Source-stated
The authors say the framework addresses the opaque diagnostic basis of generated reports, which can make them difficult to review or revise.
the pathway from visual evidence to reported findings remains opaque, leaving the diagnostic basis of these reports unexplained and the generated reports difficult to review or revise.
Source-stated
The authors constructed 159,416 multimodal chain-of-thought (MCoT) trajectories from MIMIC-CXR for the process.
we constructed 159,416 multimodal chain-of-thought (MCoT) trajectories from MIMIC-CXR
Source-stated
The authors report superior clinical-efficacy performance to strong baselines on MIMIC-CXR and MIMIC-ABN.
ARIVE achieved superior clinical-efficacy performance compared with strong baselines on MIMIC-CXR and the abnormality-centered MIMIC-ABN.
Source-stated
The authors report that access to MCoT may help identify errors in generated reports, based on a paired review evaluation.
a paired review evaluation suggests that access to MCoT can aid in identifying errors within generated reports.
Source and contributor context
Huang, Chentao, Lin, Runlong, Wang, Zhijun, Li, Yunxiang, Sun, Yuanyuan, Wang, Jian, Lin, Hongfei, Luo, Ling · 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.
Chain of thought
The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
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: 4b7a9d33-6ecf-4637-8ff9-6ffb39b2f308.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T23:18:46.702Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 34e757eaf0d0d5ab5e2e8a50806eb3bc3a6c09ca47530ebf8ea05d81c33c6258. Source text hash: 56439c9dcf6133937c7c5f1e84f1b974dcc6e49d84ccd6e8668f21f006af38ce.
passed · 2026-11-11T23:18:46.702Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 4b7a9d33-6ecf-4637-8ff9-6ffb39b2f308
attribution — pass: The reading consistently attributes the framework, data construction and results to the paper's authors. The 'arXiv cs.AI' title prefix matches the feed publisher, though the paper's primary listing is cs.CV and cs.AI is a cross-list. This is minor and does not misattribute the work.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
summary — pass: The summary leads with what the authors built and the problem they target: plausible automated reports whose diagnostic basis is opaque. It then gives the results and stays hedged. Terms such as MIMIC-CXR, MCoT and clinical-efficacy are kept exactly and suit term-library tooltips. The core idea, step-by-step reasoning tied to inspected anatomy so reviewers can trace and correct reports, remains readable. The question follows from the paired review result.
leaving the diagnostic basis of these reports unexplained and the generated reports difficult to review or revise
date — pass: The displayed original publication date of 2026-11-10 matches the v1 submission date. It is not the feed date of 2026-11-11.
[Submitted on 10 Nov 2026]
support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract, including the trajectory count, rewards, benchmark results, expert grading, traceability ratings and paired review finding. The 'can aid' hedging is preserved. The closing interpretation about inspectability is grounded in the abstract's explainability framing. The draft also explicitly says clinical-use effects are not established, so it does not turn benchmark results into real-world reliability.
a paired review evaluation suggests that access to MCoT can aid in identifying errors within generated reports
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page. That page is the source itself.
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 referenceThe step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio.
Definition referenceThe step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv