ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
An Empirical Evaluation of Low-Rank Adapted Vision-Language Models for Radiology Image Captioning.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence driven transformation of pediatric eye health education based on bibliometric analysis and a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapidly growing medical imaging volumes have increased radiologist workloads, creating demand for automated tools that support interpretation and reduce reporting delays. Vision-language models (VLMs) can generate clinically relevant captions to accelerate report drafting, yet their varying parameter scales require systematic evaluation for clinical utility. This study evaluated ten multimodal models fine-tuned on the Radiology Objects in Context version 2 (ROCOv2) dataset containing 116,635 images across eight modalities. We compared four Large VLMs (LVLMs) including LLaVA variants and IDEFICS-9B against four Small VLMs (SVLMs) including MoonDream2, Qwen variants, and SmolVLM, alongside two fully fine-tuned baseline architectures (VisionGPT2 and CNN-Transformer). Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), applied to fewer than 1% of selected model parameters, proved optimal among adaptation strategies, outperforming broader LoRA configurations. Models were assessed on relevance (semantic similarity) and factuality (concept-level correctness) metrics. Performance showed clear stratification: LVLMs (0.273 to 0.317 overall), SVLMs (0.188 to 0.279), and baselines (0.154 to 0.177). LLaVA-Mistral-7B achieved the highest performance with relevance and factuality scores of 0.516 and 0.118, respectively, substantially exceeding the VisionGPT2 baseline (0.325, 0.028). Among the SVLMs, MoonDream2 demonstrated competitive relevance (0.466), approaching the performance of some LVLMs despite its smaller size. To investigate performance enhancement strategies for underperforming SVLMs, we prepended predicted imaging modality labels at inference time, which yielded variable results. These findings provide quantitative benchmarks for VLM selection in medical imaging, demonstrating that while model scale influences performance, architectural design and targeted adaptation enable select compact models to achieve competitive results.
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.