Gastric-X: A Multimodal Multi-Phase Benchmark Dataset for Advancing Vision-Language Models in Gastric Cancer Analysis

Sheng Lu, Hao Chen, Rui Yin, Juyan Ba, Yu Zhang, Yuanzhe Li · Mar 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Recent vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong generalization and multimodal reasoning abilities in natural domains. However, their application to medical diagnosis remains limited by the lack of comprehensive and structured datasets that capture real clinical workflows. To advance the development of VLMs for clinical applications, particularly in gastric cancer, we introduce Gastric-X, a large-scale multimodal benchmark for gastric cancer analysis providing 1.7K cases. Each case in Gastric-X includes paired resting and dynamic CT scans, endoscopic image, a set of structured biochemical indicators, expert-authored diagnostic notes, and bounding box annotations of tumor regions, reflecting realistic clinical conditions. We systematically examine the capability of recent VLMs on five core tasks: Visual Question Answering (VQA), report generation, cross-modal retrieval, disease classification, and lesion localization. These tasks simulate critical stages of clinical workflow, from visual understanding and reasoning to multimodal decision support. Through this evaluation, we aim not only to assess model performance but also to probe the nature of VLM understanding: Can current VLMs meaningfully correlate biochemical signals with spatial tumor features and textual reports? We envision Gastric-X as a step toward aligning machine intelligence with the cognitive and evidential reasoning processes of physicians, and as a resource to inspire the development of next-generation medical VLMs.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.