PreprintCited by 79Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detection

PathVQA: 30000+ Questions for Medical Visual Question Answering

Open access
He, Xuehai, Zhang, Yichen, Mou, Luntian, Xing, Eric, Xie, Pengtao·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Is it possible to develop an "AI Pathologist" to pass the board-certified examination of the American Board of Pathology? To achieve this goal, the first step is to create a visual question answering (VQA) dataset where the AI agent is presented with a pathology image together with a question and is asked to give the correct answer. Our work makes the first attempt to build such a dataset. Different from creating general-domain VQA datasets where the images are widely accessible and there are many crowdsourcing workers available and capable of generating question-answer pairs, developing a medical VQA dataset is much more challenging. First, due to privacy concerns, pathology images are usually not publicly available. Second, only well-trained pathologists can understand pathology images, but they barely have time to help create datasets for AI research. To address these challenges, we resort to pathology textbooks and online digital libraries. We develop a semi-automated pipeline to extract pathology images and captions from textbooks and generate question-answer pairs from captions using natural language processing. We collect 32,799 open-ended questions from 4,998 pathology images where each question is manually checked to ensure correctness. To our best knowledge, this is the first dataset for pathology VQA. Our dataset will be released publicly to promote research in medical VQA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2003.10286

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 79

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [20][20] Jin-Hwa Kim, Jaehyun Jun, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. Bilinear attention networks. In NIPS , 2018. -
  2. [22][22] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 91-99, 2015. -

Authors
He, X., Zhang, Y., Mou, L., Xing, E., & Xie, P.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3012608737
Cited by
79
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
medical visual question answering, pathology images, pathology textbook, question-answer pair generation, image captioning, open-ended questions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review