Preference optimization is increasingly used to post-train medical large vision-language models (LVLMs), yet it operates at a much coarser granularity than the one that defines clinical correctness. Whether one response is clinically better than another usually comes down to a few decisive phrases, such as an anatomical laterality or a lesion attribute, and to whether each is supported by the image region the question concerns. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and its variants, by contrast, reduce the comparison to a single response-level scalar, an objective structurally unable to represent which tokens carry clinical meaning. We show that this mismatch is costly: of the objectives we compare, response-level DPO places the least reward on the phrases that decide clinical correctness, and substituting supervised references for preferred responses opens a stylistic gap that the model exploits as a reward-hacking shortcut, raising preference accuracy but not clinical accuracy. To capture the full feedback in a clinical comparison, we propose Fine-grained Regularized Medical Preference Optimization (FiRe-MPO). Preference pairs are built by minimally editing the model's own generations, so that preferred and rejected responses differ only on clinically decisive spans, and each is paired with a lesion-corrupted image withholding the supporting visual evidence. Because span-localized rewards are sparse, we stabilize optimization with a bidirectional token-wise KL regularizer. Across medical visual question answering and report generation, FiRe-MPO outperforms DPO, RRPO, and competing fine-grained objectives on two popular LVLMs, one medical and one general-purpose, while strengthening visual grounding and placing more reward on the medical phrases than the alternatives.

翻译：暂无翻译