ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Limitations of broadly trained LLMs in interpreting orthopedic Walch glenoid classifications.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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.
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in Urology Medical Education: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Diagnostic performance of multimodal large language models in detecting pulp stones on panoramic radiographs.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) integration in medical practice has grown substantially, with physician use nearly doubling from 38% in 2023 to 68% in 2024. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) include multimodal inputs, showing potential for medical image interpretation and clinical software integrations. This study evaluated the accuracy of two popular LLMs, Claude 3.5 Sonnet and DeepSeek R1, in interpreting glenoid diagrams using Walch glenoid classification in preoperative shoulder reconstruction applications. Test images included seven black-white Walch glenoid diagrams from Radiopedia. LLMs were accessed via Perplexity.ai without specialized medical training. LLMs were tested across multiple conversation threads with prompt instructions of varying length, ranging from 22 to 864 words for DeepSeek and 127 to 840 words for Claude. Performance differed significantly between models. DeepSeek achieved 44% accuracy (7/16), while Claude had 0% accuracy (0/16). DeepSeek showed a mild positive correlation between instruction length and response accuracy. Common errors across both LLMs included misclassifying A2 as either A1 (32%) or B2 (20%). Results highlight limitations in broadly trained LLMs' ability to interpret even simplified medical diagrams. DeepSeek's continuous learning feature and open-source dataset integration exhibited superior accuracy, although it was still insufficient for clinical applications. These limitations stem from LLM training data containing primarily text instead of medical images, creating pattern recognition deficiencies when interpreting visual medical information. Despite AI's growing adoption in healthcare, this study concludes that as of February 2025, publicly available broadly trained LLMs lack the consistency and accuracy necessary for reliable medical image interpretation, emphasizing the need for specialized training before clinical implementation.
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.