ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Evaluation of multimodal large language models for pneumothorax assessment in real-world clinical scenarios.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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.
- Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in Detection and Position Assessment of Thoracic Devices on Chest Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPneumothorax is a potentially life-threatening clinical condition requiring rapid diagnosis and intervention. It may present with symptoms such as dyspnoea, cough, chest pain, tachycardia, and tachypnoea. Heavy workload and technical limitations of chest radiographs may necessitate support for clinicians during the evaluation process. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have increased interest in using their ability to process both text and medical images as supportive tools in diagnostic processes. This study analyzed the performance of two widely used multimodal LLMs in diagnosing pneumothorax in a real clinical setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical information and anonymized chest X-rays were presented to both models using an eight-question evaluation file. The responses obtained were compared with the consensus assessment of two thoracic surgeons, considered the gold standard.
resultsPneumothorax was detected in 30 of the total 240 patients (12.5%). ChatGPT demonstrated 100% sensitivity, 91.4% specificity, 62.5% positive predictive value (PPV), and 100% negative predictive value (NPV) in detecting pneumothorax. Gemini had a sensitivity of 70.0%, specificity of 92.9%, PPV of 58.3%, and NPV of 95.6%. The performance of both models in determining the side of pneumothorax was markedly low: ChatGPT had a sensitivity of 14.3%, and Gemini had a sensitivity of 10.0%. When it involved determining the type of pneumothorax, ChatGPT demonstrated a sensitivity of 36.7% (95% CI: 21.9–54.5), while Gemini showed a sensitivity of 60.0% (95% CI: 42.3–75.4). Both models exhibited high specificity (> 91%). When assessing the need for tube thoracostomy, ChatGPT showed 57.7% sensitivity and 94.4% specificity, whereas Gemini showed 46.2% sensitivity and 95.8% specificity. NPV was high and PPV was low in both models.
conclusionMultimodal LLMs demonstrated high sensitivity in ruling out pneumothorax; however, limitations in agreement, localisation, and management decisions restrict their role to cautious, supportive use under specialist supervision.
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.