ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2025
Benchmarking Foundation Models with Multimodal Public Electronic Health Records.
Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 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.
- What affects natural killer cell activity: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.Annals of intensive care · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foundation models have emerged as a powerful approach for processing electronic health records (EHRs), offering flexibility to handle diverse medical data modalities. In this study, we present a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates the performance, fairness, and interpretability of foundation models, both as unimodal encoders and as multimodal learners, using the publicly available MIMIC-IV database. To support consistent and reproducible evaluation, we developed a standardized data processing pipeline that harmonizes heterogeneous clinical records into an analysis-ready format. We systematically compared twelve foundation models, encompassing both unimodal and multimodal models, as well as domain-specific and general-purpose variants. Our findings demonstrate that incorporating multiple data modalities generally improves predictive performance without introducing additional bias. While domain-specific fine-tuning offers a cost-effective solution for unimodal foundation models, this effectiveness does not translate well to multimodal scenarios. Additionally, our experiments reveal limited task generalizability in current large vision-language models (LVLMs), emphasizing the need for more versatile and robust medical LVLMs. Through this benchmark, we aim to support the development of effective and trustworthy multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) systems for real-world clinical applications.
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.