ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Vision-language model performance on the Japanese Nuclear Medicine Board Examination: high accuracy in text but challenges with image interpretation.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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.
- A Rasch-based analysis comparing the performance of updated multimodal large language models and surgeons on the Japanese surgical specialist examination.Surgery today · 2026Article
- AI achieves board-level performance on the Japan diagnostic radiology board examination through direct image interpretation.Japanese journal of radiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveVision language models (VLMs) allow visual input to Large Language Models. VLMs have been developing rapidly, and their accuracy is improving rapidly. Their performance in nuclear medicine compared to state-of-the-art models, including reasoning models, is not yet clear. We evaluated state-of-the-art VLMs using problems from the past Japan Nuclear Medicine Board Examination (JNMBE) and assessed their strengths and limitations.
methodsWe collected 180 multiple-choice questions from JNMBE (2022-2024). About one-third included diagnostic images. We used eight latest VLMs. ChatGPT o1 pro, ChatGPT o1, ChatGPT o3-mini, ChatGPT-4.5, Claude 3.7, Gemini 2.0 Flash thinking, Llama 3.2, and Gemma 3 were tested. Each model answered every question three times in a deterministic setting, and the final answer was set by majority vote. Two board-certified nuclear medicine physicians independently provided reference answers, with a third expert resolving disagreements. We calculated overall accuracy with 95% confidence intervals and performed subgroup analyses by question type, content, and exam year.
resultsOverall accuracies ranged from 36.1% (Gemma 3) to 83.3% (ChatGPT o1 pro). ChatGPT o1 pro achieved the highest score (150/180, 83.3% [95% CI: 77.1-88.5%]), followed by ChatGPT o3-mini (82.8%) and ChatGPTo1 (78.9%). All models performed better on text-only questions than on image-based ones; ChatGPT o1 pro correctly answered 89.5% of text questions versus 66.0% of image questions. VLMs demonstrated limitations in handling with questions on Japanese regulations. ChatGPT 4.5 excelled in neurology-related image-based questions (76.9%). Accuracy was slightly lower from 2022 to 2024 for most models.
conclusionsVLMs demonstrated high accuracy on the JNMBE, especially on text-based questions, but exhibited limitations with image recognition questions. These findings show that VLMs can be a good assistant for text-based questions in medical domains but have limitations when it comes to comprehensive questions that include images. Currently, VLMs cannot replace comprehensive training and expert interpretation. Because VLMs evolve rapidly and exam difficulty varies annually, these findings should be interpreted in that context.
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.