ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Prompt injection attacks on vision-language models for surgical decision support.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Artificial Intelligence-driven analysis of laparoscopic video holds potential to increase the safety and precision of minimally invasive surgery. Vision-language models are particularly promising for video-based surgical decision support due to their capabilities to comprehend complex temporospatial (video) data. However, the same multimodal interfaces that enable such capabilities also introduce new vulnerabilities to manipulations through embedded deceptive text or images (prompt injection attacks). Objective: To systematically evaluate how susceptible state-of-the-art video-capable vision-language models are to textual and visual prompt injection attacks in the context of clinically relevant surgical decision support tasks. Design Setting and Participants: In this observational study, we systematically evaluated four state-of-the-art vision-language models, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-o4-mini-high, and Qwen 2.5-VL, across eleven surgical decision support tasks: detection of bleeding events, foreign objects, image distortions, critical view of safety assessment, and surgical skill assessment. Prompt injection scenarios involved misleading textual prompts and visual perturbations, displayed as white text overlay, applied at varying durations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure was model accuracy, contrasted between baseline performance and each prompt injection condition. Results: All vision-language models demonstrated good baseline accuracy, with Gemini 2.5 Pro generally achieving the highest mean [standard deviation] accuracy across all tasks (0.82 [0.01]), compared to Gemini 1.5 Pro (0.70 [0.03]) and GPT-o4 mini-high (0.67 [0.06]). Across tasks, Qwen 2.5-VL censored most outputs and achieved an accuracy of (0.58 [0.03]) on non-censored outputs. Textual and temporally-varying visual prompt injections reduced the accuracy for all models. Prolonged visual prompt injections were generally more harmful than single-frame injections. Gemini 2.5 Pro showed the greatest robustness and maintained stable performance for several tasks despite prompt injections, whereas GPT-o4-mini-high exhibited the highest vulnerability, with mean (standard deviation) accuracy across all tasks declining from 0.67 (0.06) at baseline to 0.24 (0.04) under full-duration visual prompt injection ( Conclusion and Relevance: These findings indicate the critical need for robust temporal reasoning capabilities and specialized guardrails before vision-language models can be safely deployed for real-time surgical decision support.
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.