Modern 3D medical vision-language models (VLMs) can generate fluent radiology-style text while exhibit critically low pathology detection and output diversity, collapsing to generic templates that under-report rare yet critical findings. We identify this failure mode as Template Collapse. This failure stems from the unique constraints of 3D medical imaging, e.g., limited data, severe label imbalance, and weak signals from volumetric encoders. Under these constraints, text-generation objectives encourage shortcut learning and fluent but weakly grounded reports. We systematically diagnose the Template Collapse through clinical fidelity, output diversity, normal-template bias, and rare-finding survival. To mitigate it, we propose CLarGen, a decoupled framework that separates what to say (clinical detection) from how to say it (language synthesis). CLarGen uses (i) a Latent Query Transformer for multi-label pathology detection, (ii) pathology-guided retrieval for clinically matched exemplars, and (iii) a medical language model to synthesize the final report from detected findings and retrieved context. Across state-of-the-art 3D CT report generation baselines, CLarGen mitigates Template Collapse and substantially improves clinical accuracy (macro-F1 0.487 vs. 0.189; CRG 0.472 vs. 0.368) while maintaining fluent reporting. Our results suggest that explicit, measurable clinical grounding is essential for template-collapse-resistant 3D CT report generation. Code is available at https://github.com/ai-med/CLarGen.

Automatically generated radiology reports often receive high scores from existing evaluation metrics but fail to earn clinicians’ trust. This gap reveals fundamental flaws in how current metrics assess the quality of generated reports. We rethink the design and evaluation of these metrics and propose a clinically grounded Meta-Evaluation framework. We define clinically grounded criteria spanning clinical alignment and key metric capabilities, including discrimination, robustness, and monotonicity. Using a fine-grained dataset of ground truth and rewritten report pairs annotated with error types, clinical significance labels, and explanations, we systematically evaluate existing metrics and reveal their limitations in interpreting clinical semantics, such as failing to distinguish clinically significant errors, over-penalizing harmless variations, and lacking consistency across error severity levels. Our framework offers guidance for building more clinically reliable evaluation methods.