ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of vision language models for neuroradiological image interpretation.
Article in NPJ digital 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.
- Do Accuracy Gains Reflect Genuine Visual Understanding? A Multi-Model Evaluation of Vision-Language Models in Thoracic Imaging.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Visual Large Language Models in Radiology: A Systematic Multimodel Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy and Hallucinations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of commercial and open-source Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in neuroradiological image interpretation, using a dataset of 100 brain and spine cases from Radiopaedia. Five VLMs (Gemini 2.0, OpenAI o1, Llama 3.2 90b, Qwen 2.5, Grok-2-vision) were compared to expert neuroradiologists in generating differential diagnoses based on brief clinical presentations and imaging. Neuroradiologists achieved a mean accuracy of 86.2%, whereas the best-performing VLM (Gemini 2.0) reached 35%. Evaluation of the top three differentials improved VLM accuracy marginally, but remained inferior to human experts. Clinical harm analysis revealed frequent diagnostic risks, primarily treatment delays, with harmful outputs in up to 45% of cases. Error analysis showed consistent failure modes including incorrect anatomical localization, inaccurate imaging descriptions, and hallucinated findings. These results highlight the current limitations of VLMs and underscore the importance of expert oversight in neuroradiological diagnosis.
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.