ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Understanding the robustness of vision-language models to medical image artefacts.
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.
- EchoAtlas: A Conversational, Multi-View Vision-Language Foundation Model for Echocardiography Interpretation and Clinical Reasoning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- The AROMA Dataset for Automatic Detection of Artifact Type and Severity in Retinal Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.Ophthalmic 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise for answering clinically relevant questions, but their robustness to medical image artefacts remains unclear. We evaluated VLMs' robustness through their performance on images with and without weak artefacts across five artefact categories, as well as their ability to detect images with strong artefacts. We built evaluation benchmarks using brain MRI scans, Chest X-ray, and retinal images, involving four real-world medical datasets. VLMs achieved moderate accuracy on original unaltered images (0.645, 0.602 and 0.604 for MRI, OCT, and X-ray applications, respectively). Accuracy declined with weak artefacts (-3.34%, -9.06% and -10.46%), while strong artefacts were detected at low rates (0.194, 0.128 and 0.115). Our findings indicated that VLMs are not yet capable of performing tasks on medical images with artefacts, underscoring the need to establish uniform benchmark thoroughly examining model robustness to image artefacts, and explicitly incorporate artefact-aware method design and robustness tests into VLM development.
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.