Medical Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answering binary presence questions on chest radiographs can fail in two linked ways: they are confidently wrong, and they change answers when a clinically equivalent question is rephrased. In a binary answer head both failures track the same logit margin, so we test how well one score screens for both. On MedGemma-4B-IT across MIMIC-CXR (in-distribution, n=196) and PadChest (out-of-distribution, n=861), single-pass predictive entropy predicts which yes/no answers flip under rephrasing with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.823 on PadChest and 0.821 on MIMIC, and the signal is stable across five random seeds (0.828\pm0.021). The same signal replicates on LLaVA-RAD-7B (AUROC 0.83) and is invariant to the flip definition (all, operator-preserving, or negation-excluded rewrites), so the screen needs no semantic filter at inference. One low-entropy threshold drives error and flip rate down together (3.3% and 5.7% at 80% coverage), and threshold selection transfers to a held-out split. Under cross-site shift the more expensive methods we test add nothing practical: at the 5% risk target a single forward pass answers 88.5% of cases, matching Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout, and beats the uniformly averaged five-seed adapter ensemble on error detection by 0.111 AUROC. Even a model that is 91% accurate still contradicts itself on 13% of items under rephrasing, and one forward pass flags them.
Predictive Entropy as a Joint Screen for Error and Paraphrase Instability in Medical Vision-Language Models
Medical Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answering binary presence questions on chest radiographs can fail in two linked ways: they are confidently wrong, and they change answers when a clinically equivalent question is rephrased.
- Preview

- Year
- 2026
- Hosting
- Full text hostedCC-BY-SA-4.0
Cite
Notes
Only stored in your browser.
Attribution
- Abstract & full text
- arxiv.org/abs/2604.08941CC-BY-SA-4.0
- TL;DR
- Semantic Scholar