ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Benchmarking proprietary and open-source language and vision-language models for gastroenterology clinical reasoning.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can artificial intelligence pass the test? Evaluating chatbot scores on pediatric gastroenterology board-style questions.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- How to benchmark medical AI agents.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Performance comparison of a neuro-symbolic large language model system versus conventional AI models and human experts in cholangitis management.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- [Clinical Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: A Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction Perspective].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2026Review
- TCM-DiffRAG: personalized syndrome differentiation reasoning method for traditional Chinese medicine based on knowledge graph and chain of thought.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Exploratory task-specific evaluation of large language models in lung cancer clinical scenarios: A comparative study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) in gastroenterology. We used board-style multiple-choice questions to assess the performance of both proprietary and open-source LLMs and VLMs-including GPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Llama, Mixtral, Phi, and Qwen, across different interfaces, computing environments, and levels of compression (quantization). Among the proprietary models, o1-preview (82.0%) and Claude3.5-Sonnet (74.0%) had the highest accuracy, outperforming the top open-source models: Llama3.3-70b (65.7%) and Qwen-2.5-72b (61.0%). Among the small quantized open-source models, the 8-bit Llama 3.2-11b (51.7%) and 6-bit Phi3-14b (48.7%) performed the best, with scores comparable to their full-precision counterparts. Notably, VLM accuracy on image-containing questions improved (~10%) when given human-generated captions, remained unchanged with original images, and declined with LLM-generated captions. Further research is warranted to evaluate model capabilities in real-world clinical decision-making scenarios.
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.