ArticleBiomedical engineering online2025
Benchmarking Vision LLMs in fetal ultrasound interpretation: a five-point expert evaluation of standard vs. custom prompts.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFetal ultrasound imaging is critical for prenatal care, demanding accurate anatomical interpretation. This study evaluates the potential of Vision Large Language Models (LLMs) in interpreting fetal ultrasound images, exploring whether tailored prompts can enhance performance compared to standard prompts, and assessing their utility in clinical settings.
methodsNine fetal ultrasound images were analyzed using six advanced Vision LLMs via the Chatbot Arena platform. Standard prompts were compared against expert-crafted tailored questions. Three expert sonographers assessed the models' outputs across five criteria-anatomical recognition, biometric potential, picture quality, normalcy assessment, and clinical recommendations-using a Likert scale (1-5).
resultsStandard prompts yielded limited interpretative accuracy. In contrast, custom prompts significantly improved performance, with Claude Sonnet 3.5 and ChatGPT4o achieving median scores of 19 and 18, respectively. Models excelled in analyzing fetal femur and trans-cerebellum images, with clinical advice being the easiest to identify. Challenges persisted in precise anatomical identification and image quality assessment, revealing limitations in visual recognition. Smaller models like pixtral-12b showed notable improvement with tailoring, suggesting fine-tuning potential, while larger models did not consistently outperform smaller ones, indicating factors beyond model size influence efficacy.
conclusionTailored prompts markedly enhance Vision LLMs' ability to interpret fetal ultrasound images, supporting their potential as aids in prenatal diagnosis and education. However, limitations in anatomical precision and image quality assessment persist. Future research should focus on refining models with specialized datasets, optimizing architectures, and advancing prompt engineering to maximize clinical utility.
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.