MedSeg-R: Reasoning Segmentation in Medical Images with Multimodal Large Language Models
Abstract
Medical image segmentation is crucial for clinical diagnosis, yet existing models are limited by their reliance on explicit human instructions and lack the active reasoning capabilities to understand complex clinical questions. While recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have improved medical question-answering (QA) tasks, most methods struggle to generate precise segmentation masks, limiting their application in automatic medical diagnosis. In this paper, we introduce medical image reasoning segmentation, a novel task that aims to generate segmentation masks based on complex and implicit medical instructions. To address this, we propose MedSeg-R, an end-to-end framework that leverages the reasoning abilities of MLLMs to interpret clinical questions while also capable of producing corresponding precise segmentation masks for medical images. It is built on two core components: 1) a global context understanding module that interprets images and comprehends complex medical instructions to generate multi-modal intermediate tokens, and 2) a pixel-level grounding module that decodes these tokens to produce precise segmentation masks and textual responses. Furthermore, we introduce MedSeg-QA, a large-scale dataset tailored for the medical image reasoning segmentation task. It includes over 10,000 image-mask pairs and multi-turn conversations, automatically annotated using large language models and refined through physician reviews. Experiments show MedSeg-R's superior performance across several benchmarks, achieving high segmentation accuracy and enabling interpretable textual analysis of medical images.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
This process disrupts the MLLM's original text output space and increases the risk of catastrophic forgetting, thereby compromising semantic generalization by deviating from language-based outputs.
“This process disrupts the MLLM's original text output space and increases the risk of catastrophic forgetting, thereby compromising semantic generalization by deviating from languagebased outputs.”
From IBISAgent: Reinforcing Pixel-Level Visual Reasoning in MLLMs for Universal Biomedical Object Referring and Segmentation (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
Section 2.2 describes generating text responses with special segmentation tokens and training for both text quality and segmentation accuracy. Our copy does not address disruption of the original text output space, catastrophic forgetting, or a resulting loss of semantic generalization (searched those terms and deviation from language-based outputs). No page number is available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F.L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al.: Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023) · arXiv
- Antonelli, M., Reinke, A., Bakas, S., Farahani, K., Kopp-Schneider, A., Landman, B.A., Litjens, G., Menze, B., Ronneberger, O., Summers, R.M., et al.: The medical segmentation decathlon. Nature communications 13(1), 4128 (2022)
- Dai, W., Li, J., Li, D., Tiong, A.M.H., Zhao, J., Wang, W., Li, B., Fung, P., Hoi, S.: Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. arXiv:2305.06500 (2023) · arXiv
- Hatamizadeh, A., Nath, V., Tang, Y., Yang, D., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In: International MICCAI brainlesion workshop. pp. 272-284. Springer (2021)
- Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., Yang, D., Myronenko, A., Landman, B., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vi- sion. pp. 574-584 (2022)
- He, X., Zhang, Y., Mou, L., Xing, E., Xie, P.: Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286 (2020) · arXiv
- Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R.: Segment anything. arXiv:2304.02643 (2023) · arXiv
- Kuş, Z., Aydin, M.: Medsegbench: A comprehensive benchmark for medical image segmentation in diverse data modalities. Scientific Data 11(1), 1283 (2024)
- Lai, X., Tian, Z., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Yuan, Y., Liu, S., Jia, J.: Lisa: Reasoning segmentation via large language model. arXiv:2308.00692 (2023) · arXiv
- Liu, B., Zhan, L.M., Xu, L., Ma, L., Yang, Y., Wu, X.M.: Slake: A semantically- labeled knowledge-enhanced dataset for medical visual question answering. In: In- ternational Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). IEEE (2021)
- Ma, J., He, Y., Li, F., Han, L., You, C., Wang, B.: Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications 15, 654 (2024)
- Myronenko, A.: 3d mri brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization. In: Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries: 4th International Workshop, BrainLes 2018, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 16, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, Part II 4. pp. 311-320. Springer (2019)
- van Sonsbeek, T., Derakhshani, M.M., Najdenkoska, I., Snoek, C.G., Worring, M.: Open-ended medical visual question answering through prefix tuning of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05977 (2023) · arXiv
- Zhang, K., Zhou, R., Adhikarla, E., Yan, Z., Liu, Y., Yu, J., Liu, Z., Chen, X., Davison, B.D., Ren, H., Huang, J., Chen, C., Zhou, Y., Fu, S., Liu, W., Liu, T., Li, X., Chen, Y., He, L., Zou, J., Li, Q., Liu, H., Sun, L.: A generalist vision-language foundation model for diverse biomedical tasks. Nature Medicine 30(11), 3129-3141 (Aug 2024)
- Zhang, K., Liu, D.: Customized segment anything model for medical image seg- mentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13785 (2023) · arXiv
- Zhang, S., Xu, Y., Usuyama, N., Xu, H., Bagga, J., Tinn, R., Preston, S., Rao, R., Wei, M., Valluri, N., et al.: Biomedclip: a multimodal biomedical foundation model pretrained from fifteen million scientific image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00915 (2023) · arXiv
- Zhao, T., Gu, Y., Yang, J., Usuyama, N., Lee, H.H., Kiblawi, S., Naumann, T., Gao, J., Crabtree, A., Abel, J., Moung-Wen, C., Piening, B., Bifulco, C., Wei, M., Poon, H., Wang, S.: A foundation model for joint segmentation, detection and recognition of biomedical objects across nine modalities. Nature Methods 22(1), 166-176 (Nov 2024)
- Zhu, D., Chen, J., Shen, X., Li, X., Elhoseiny, M.: Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision- language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv:2304.10592 (2023) · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu, S., Bao, L., Yang, Q., Geng, W., Zheng, B., Li, C., Chen, W., Peng, H., & Yuan, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03320 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Jiang, Y., Li, Q., Xu, B., Sun, H., Ding, C., Dong, J., Cai, Y., Zhang, X., & Yin, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03054 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Huang, Y., Peng, Z., Zhao, Y., Yang, P., Yang, X., & Shen, W.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2506.10465
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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