ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Evaluating the performance of large language & visual-language models in cervical cytology screening.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-enabled cytopathological interpretation of fluorescence microscopy images via a multimodal large language model.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
- MEETI: A Multimodal ECG Dataset from MIMIC-IV-ECG with Signals, Images, Features and Interpretations.Scientific data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) and large visual-language models (LVLMs) have exhibited near-human levels of knowledge, image comprehension, and reasoning abilities, and their performance has undergone evaluation in some healthcare domains. However, a systematic evaluation of their capabilities in cervical cytology screening has yet to be conducted. Here, we constructed CCBench, a benchmark dataset dedicated to the evaluation of LLMs and LVLMs in cervical cytology screening, and developed a GPT-based semi-automatic evaluation pipeline to assess the performance of six LLMs (GPT-4, Bard, Claude-2.0, LLaMa-2, Qwen-Max, and ERNIE-Bot-4.0) and five LVLMs (GPT-4V, Gemini, LLaVA, Qwen-VL, and ViLT) on this dataset. CCBench comprises 773 question-answer (QA) pairs and 420 visual-question-answer (VQA) triplets, making it the first dataset in cervical cytology to include both QA and VQA data. We found that LLMs and LVLMs demonstrate promising accuracy and specialization in cervical cytology screening. GPT-4 achieved the best performance on the QA dataset, with an accuracy of 70.5% for close-ended questions and average expert evaluation score of 6.9/10 for open-ended questions. On the VQA dataset, Gemini achieved the highest accuracy for close-ended questions at 67.8%, while GPT-4V attained the highest expert evaluation score of 6.1/10 for open-ended questions. Besides, LLMs and LVLMs revealed varying abilities in answering questions across different topics and difficulty levels. However, their performance remains inferior to the expertise exhibited by cytopathology professionals, and the risk of generating misinformation could lead to potential harm. Therefore, substantial improvements are required before these models can be reliably deployed in clinical practice.
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.