Good Papers

MedHorizon: Towards Long-context Medical Video Understanding in the Wild

MedHorizon benchmarks long medical video understanding via sparse evidence retrieval and multi-hop reasoning, with top models reaching only 41.1% accuracy.

Bodong Du, Bowen Liu, Yang YU, Xinpeng Ding, Zhiheng Wu, Shuning Wang, Shuo Nie, Naiming Liu, Qifeng Chen, Yangqiu Song, Xiaomeng Li

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 1 · Tue, Dec 8, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

89%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel16/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 8/10
strict 3/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

Medical multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have advanced image understanding and short-video analysis, but real clinical review often requires full-procedure video understanding. Unlike general long videos, medical procedures contain highly redundant anatomical views, while decisive evidence is temporally sparse, spatially subtle, and context dependent. Existing benchmarks often assume this evidence has already been localized through images, short clips, or pre-segmented videos, leaving the retrieval-before-reasoning problem under-tested. We introduce MedHorizon, an in-the-wild benchmark for long-context medical video understanding. MedHorizon preserves 759 hours of full-length clinical procedures and provides 1,253 evidence-grounded multiple-choice questionsthat jointly evaluate sparse evidence understanding and multi-hop clinical reasoning. Its evidence is extremely sparse, with only 0.166% evidence frames on average, requiring models to search noisy procedural streams before interpreting and aggregating findings. We evaluate representative general-domain, medical-domain, and long-video MLLMs. The best model reaches only 41.1% accuracy, showing that current systems remain far from robust full-procedure understanding. Further analysis yields four key findings: performance does not scale reliably with more frames, evidence retrieval and clinical interpretation remain primary bottlenecks; these bottlenecks are rooted in weak procedural reasoning and attention drift under redundancy, and generic sampling methods only partially balances local detail with global coverage. MedHorizon provides a rigorous testbed for MLLMs that retrieve sparse evidence and reason over complete clinical workflows.