Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41674096›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026

Large-scale evaluation of multimodal large language models for pneumothorax detection.

Hamza Eren Güzel, Cemre Özenbaş, Ali Murat Koç

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hamza Eren GüzelUniversity of Health Sciences Türkiye, İzmir City Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İzmir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-4228-0840
Cemre ÖzenbaşTınaztepe University Private Buca Hospital, Department of Radiology, İzmir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-6688-5003
Ali Murat Koçİzmir Katip Çelebi University Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiology, İzmir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-6824-4990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePneumothorax requires rapid recognition and accurate interpretation of chest X-rays (CXRs), particularly in acute settings where delays can have serious consequences. With the emergence of advanced image interpretation models capable of visual analysis, their diagnostic reliability in radiology practice remains to be determined. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of three state-of-the-art systems in detecting pneumothorax using a large, well-annotated dataset.

methodsA total of 10,675 CXRs from the publicly available SIIM-ACR Pneumothorax Segmentation dataset were analyzed. Three multimodal models (GPT-4o, Gemini 2 Pro, and Claude 4 Sonnet) were evaluated using a uniform, image-based approach. Each model's binary outputs (presence: 1, absence: 0) were compared with reference results to determine accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 scores. Additional subgroup analyses were conducted across pneumothorax size categories: small, medium, and large. Pairwise statistical comparisons were performed using McNemar's test. Sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy are reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

resultsThe prevalence of pneumothorax in the dataset was 22.3% (n = 2,379). All models demonstrated high specificity (above 0.90) but consistently low sensitivity (0.16-0.36). The best overall performance was observed with Gemini 2, which achieved an accuracy of 0.79 and specificity of 0.95, whereas Claude 4 showed greater sensitivity (0.20-0.34) across lesion-size categories. Diagnostic performance improved with increasing pneumothorax size, but smaller lesions remained difficult to identify. Pairwise comparisons confirmed statistically significant differences among all evaluated systems (

conclusionIn this large-scale evaluation, the tested models exhibited strong reliability in identifying normal examinations but limited ability to detect subtle or small pneumothoraxes. Despite high specificity, low sensitivity limits the use of current multimodal large language models as rule-out tools for pneumothorax. With continued refinement, these models may eventually support radiologists by improving workflow efficiency and diagnostic confidence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Automated systems capable of high specificity but low sensitivity should not be relied upon to exclude pneumothorax. However, they may serve as valuable assistants for confirming positive findings and prioritizing urgent cases in busy clinical workflows.

Indexed as

PneumothoraxRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, ThoracicHumansLarge Language ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificityartificial intelligencechest X-raydiagnostic accuracymultimodal large language modelsPneumothorax

Identifiers

PMID41674096
PMCPMC13530647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.