ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2025
How well do multimodal LLMs interpret CT scans? An auto-evaluation framework for analyses.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomedical multimodal large language models: From model-centric development to clinically grounded evaluation and integration.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026Article
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond Multiple-Choice Accuracy: Real-World Challenges of Implementing Large Language Models in Healthcare.ArXiv · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study introduces a novel evaluation framework, GPTRadScore, to systematically assess the performance of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in generating clinically accurate findings from CT imaging. Specifically, GPTRadScore leverages LLMs as an evaluation metric, aiming to provide a more accurate and clinically informed assessment than traditional language-specific methods. Using this framework, we evaluate the capability of several MLLMs, including GPT-4 with Vision (GPT-4V), Gemini Pro Vision, LLaVA-Med, and RadFM, to interpret findings in CT scans.
methodsThis retrospective study leverages a subset of the public DeepLesion dataset to evaluate the performance of several multimodal LLMs in describing findings in CT slices. GPTRadScore was developed to assess the generated descriptions (location, body part, and type) using GPT-4, alongside traditional metrics. RadFM was fine-tuned using a subset of the DeepLesion dataset with additional labeled examples targeting complex findings. Post fine-tuning, performance was reassessed using GPTRadScore to measure accuracy improvements.
resultsEvaluations demonstrated a high correlation of GPTRadScore with clinician assessments, with Pearson's correlation coefficients of 0.87, 0.91, 0.75, 0.90, and 0.89. These results highlight its superiority over traditional metrics, such as BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE, and indicate that GPTRadScore can serve as a reliable evaluation metric. Using GPTRadScore, it was observed that while GPT-4V and Gemini Pro Vision outperformed other models, significant areas for improvement remain, primarily due to limitations in the datasets used for training. Fine-tuning RadFM resulted in substantial accuracy gains: location accuracy increased from 3.41% to 12.8%, body part accuracy improved from 29.12% to 53%, and type accuracy rose from 9.24% to 30%. These findings reinforce the hypothesis that fine-tuning RadFM can significantly enhance its performance.
conclusionGPT-4 effectively correlates with expert assessments, validating its use as a reliable metric for evaluating multimodal LLMs in radiological diagnostics. Additionally, the results underscore the efficacy of fine-tuning approaches in improving the descriptive accuracy of LLM-generated medical imaging findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40578543What 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.