ArticleHealthcare informatics research2025
Utility of Multimodal Large Language Models in Analyzing Chest X-Rays with Incomplete Contextual Information.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness, Safety, and Workflow Burden of Large Language Model-Based Medical Report Generation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice, but their performance can deteriorate when radiology reports are incomplete. We evaluated whether multimodal LLMs (integrating text and images) could enhance accuracy and interpretability in chest radiography reports, thereby improving their utility for clinical decision support. Specifically, we aimed to assess the robustness of LLMs in generating accurate impressions from chest radiography reports when provided with incomplete data, and whether multimodal input could mitigate performance loss.
methodsWe analyzed 300 radiology image-report pairs from the MIMIC-CXR database. Three LLMs-OpenFlamingo, MedFlamingo, IDEFICS-were tested in text-only and multimodal formats. Chest X-ray impressions were generated from complete text reports and then regenerated after systematically removing 20%, 50%, and 80% of the text. The effect of adding images was evaluated using chest X-rays, and model performance was compared using three statistical methods. Hallucination rates were quantified.
resultsIn the text-only setting, OpenFlamingo, MedFlamingo, and IDEFICS demonstrated comparable performance (ROUGE-L: 0.23 vs. 0.21 vs. 0.21; F1RadGraph: 0.20 vs. 0.16 vs. 0.16; F1CheXbert: 0.49 vs. 0.41 vs. 0.41), with OpenFlamingo performing best on complete text (p < 0.001). All models exhibited performance decline with incomplete data. However, multimodal input significantly improved the performance of MedFlamingo and IDEFICS (p < 0.001), equaling or surpassing OpenFlamingo even under incomplete text conditions. Regarding hallucination, MedFlamingo showed a lower false-negative rate in multimodal compared with unimodal use, while false-positive rates were similar.
conclusionsLLMs may produce suboptimal outputs when radiology data are incomplete, but multimodal LLMs enhance reliability and may strengthen clinical decision-making support.
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.