ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Visual-textual integration in LLMs for medical diagnosis: A preliminary quantitative analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Echocardiography Report Translation and Inference Based on Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLaMA Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Opportunities and Challenges of Visual Large Language Models in Imaging Diagnostics: Lessons from Brain Metastasis Detection in Clinical MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy and Diagnostic Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models in Interpreting Neuroradiology Cases FromKorean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of generative large language artificial intelligence models for the assessment of dental crowding.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Battle of the Bots: Solving Clinical Cases in Osteoarticular Infections With Large Language Models.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- Large Language Models in Healthcare and Medical Applications: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance of multimodal large language models in radiological quiz cases: the effects of prompt engineering and input conditions.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Prompt engineering and diagnostic accuracy of multimodal large language models in thyroid fine-needle aspiration cytology.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.