Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39850658›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025

Visual-textual integration in LLMs for medical diagnosis: A preliminary quantitative analysis.

Reem Agbareia, Mahmud Omar, Shelly Soffer, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Girish N Nadkarni, Eyal Klang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Agreement of Multimodal Large Language Models and Novice Readers With Expert-Based Radiographic Scoring of Presumptive Septic Carpal Arthritis in Calves.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Reem AgbareiaOphthalmology Department, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Mahmud OmarDivision of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Shelly SofferInstitute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel.
Benjamin S GlicksbergDivision of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Girish N NadkarniDivision of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Eyal KlangDivision of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aim: Visual data from images is essential for many medical diagnoses. This study evaluates the performance of multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) in integrating textual and visual information for diagnostic purposes. Methods: We tested GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 3.5 on 120 clinical vignettes with and without accompanying images. Each vignette included patient demographics, a chief concern, and relevant medical history. Vignettes were paired with either clinical or radiological images from two sources: 100 images from the OPENi database and 20 images from recent NEJM challenges, ensuring they were not in the LLMs' training sets. Three primary care physicians served as a human benchmark. We analyzed diagnostic accuracy and the models' explanations for a subset of cases. Results: LLMs outperformed physicians in text-only scenarios (GPT-4o: 70.8 %, Claude Sonnet 3.5: 59.5 %, Physicians: 39.5 %, p < 0.001, Bonferroni-adjusted). With image integration, all improved, but physicians showed the largest gain (GPT-4o: 84.5 %, p < 0.001; Claude Sonnet 3.5: 67.3 %, p = 0.060; Physicians: 78.8 %, p < 0.001, all Bonferroni-adjusted). LLMs altered their explanatory reasoning in 45-60 % of cases when images were provided. Conclusion: Multimodal LLMs showed higher diagnostic accuracy than physicians in text-only scenarios, even in cases designed to require visual interpretation, suggesting that while images can enhance diagnostic accuracy, they may not be essential in every instance. Although adding images further improved LLM performance, the magnitude of this improvement was smaller than that observed in physicians. These findings suggest that enhanced visual data processing may be needed for LLMs to achieve the degree of image-related performance gains seen in human examiners.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceLarge language modelsMedical diagnosisMultimodal learningVisual data integration

Identifiers

PMID39850658
PMCPMC11754970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.