# InViC: Intent-aware Visual Cues for Medical Visual Question Answering Source: [InViC: Intent-aware Visual Cues for Medical Visual Question Answering]() Collection index: [llms.txt]() Data updated: 2026-03-19T05:00:05.030Z Authors: Zhisong Wang, Ziyang Chen, Zanting Ye, Hongze Zhu, Yefeng Zheng, Yong Xia Published: 2026-03-17T10:59:48.000Z ## Abstract Medical visual question answering (Med-VQA) aims to answer clinically relevant questions grounded in medical images. However, existing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often exhibit shortcut answering, producing plausible responses by exploiting language priors or dataset biases while insufficiently attending to visual evidence. This behavior undermines clinical reliability, especially when subtle imaging findings are decisive. We propose a lightweight plug-in framework, termed Intent-aware Visual Cues (InViC), to explicitly enhance image-based answer generation in medical VQA. InViC introduces a Cue Tokens Extraction (CTE) module that distills dense visual tokens into a compact set of K question-conditioned cue tokens, which serve as structured visual intermediaries injected into the LLM decoder to promote intent-aligned visual evidence. To discourage bypassing of visual information, we further design a two-stage fine-tuning strategy with a cue-bottleneck attention mask. In Stage I, we employ an attention mask to block the LLM's direct view of raw visual features, thereby funneling all visual evidence through the cue pathway. In Stage II, standard causal attention is restored to train the LLM to jointly exploit the visual and cue tokens. We evaluate InViC on three public Med-VQA benchmarks (VQA-RAD, SLAKE, and ImageCLEF VQA-Med 2019) across multiple representative MLLMs. InViC consistently improves over zero-shot inference and standard LoRA fine-tuning, demonstrating that intent-aware visual cues with bottlenecked training is a practical and effective strategy for improving trustworthy Med-VQA. ## Recorded benchmark results A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage. ## Original sources and implementation [Original paper]() [PDF]()