ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Evaluating few-shot prompting for spectrogram-based lung sound classification using a multimodal language model.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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.
- Multimodal Deep Learning Approaches for Lung Disease Detection: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional deep learning models for lung sound analysis require large, labeled datasets, whereas multimodal large language models (LLMs) may offer a flexible, prompt-based alternative. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a general-purpose multimodal LLM, GPT-4o, for lung sound classification from mel-spectrograms and assess whether a few-shot prompt approach improves performance over zero-shot prompting. Using the ICBHI 2017 Respiratory Sound Database, 6898 annotated respiratory cycles were converted into mel-spectrograms. GPT-4o was prompted to classify each spectrogram using both zero-shot and few-shot strategies. Model outputs were evaluated against ground truth labels using performance metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Few-shot prompting improved overall accuracy (0.363 vs. 0.320) and yielded modest gains in precision (0.316 vs. 0.283), recall (0.300 vs. 0.287), and F1-score (0.308 vs. 0.285) across labels. McNemar's test indicated a statistically significant difference in performance between prompting strategies (p < 0.001). Model repeatability analysis demonstrated high agreement (κ = 0.76-0.88; agreement: 89-96%), indicating excellent consistency. GPT-4o demonstrated limited but statistically significant performance gains using few-shot prompting for lung sound classification. While current performance remains insufficient for clinical deployment, this prompt-based approach provides a baseline for spectrogram-based multimodal tasks and a foundation for future exploration of prompt-based multimodal inference.
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.