ArticleNature communications2025
A Benchmark for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis in Mammogram Visual Question Answering.
Article in Nature communications, 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.
- Medical visual question answering with multimodal: a systematic mini review (2023-2026).Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- A Benchmark for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis in Mammogram Visual Question Answering.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer remains the most prevalent malignancy in women worldwide. Mammography-based early detection plays a pivotal role in improving patient survival outcomes. While large vision-language models offer transformative potential for mammogram visual question answering, the absence of standardized evaluation benchmarks currently makes it hard to fairly compare different large vision-language models' performance in mammogram interpretation. In this study, we address this critical gap through three key contributions: (1) We introduce MammoVQA, a mammogram visual question-answering dataset that unifies 15 public datasets, comprising 131,847 images (421K question-answering pairs) for image-level cases and 72,518 exams (476K images, 144K question-answering pairs) for exam-level cases. (2) Systematic evaluation of 12 recent high-performance large vision-language models (6 general, 6 medical) reveals diagnostic performance statistically equivalent to random guessing, highlighting their unreliability for mammogram interpretation. (3) Our domain-optimized LLaVA-Mammo achieves average +19.66% weighted accuracy gains over the best recent high-performance model in internal validation, with average +21.21% weighted accuracy improvements in external validation.
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.