ArticleCureus2026
Effect of Region-of-Interest Prompting on Gemini 2.5 Pro in MRI Classification of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in musculoskeletal imaging, yet the diagnostic contribution of large language models (LLMs) remains unclear. Prompt engineering may critically shape performance.
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Google Gemini 2.5 Pro in classifying anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) status on knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to compare three prompting strategies; the primary endpoint was weighted F1-score.
methodsA retrospective diagnostic study used 150 proton-density fat-suppressed (PD-FS) knee MRI volumes (50 each: healthy, partially injured, completely ruptured) drawn from a publicly available dataset (Clinical Hospital Centre Rijeka, Croatia; 2006-2014). Gemini 2.5 Pro received multimodal inputs via the official Python software development kit (SDK). Three prompts were tested: (P1) general series prompt, (P2) technical-description prompt, and (P3) region-of-interest (ROI)-focused prompt. Outputs (A = healthy, B = partial, C = ruptured) were compared with radiologist labels. Accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, F1 score, confusion matrices, and mean inference time were computed (scikit-learn v1.5.0). Ethical approval was waived because the data were de-identified and publicly available.
resultsMean inference time was 2.1 ± 0.3 seconds per volume. ROI prompting (P3) yielded the highest weighted F1-score (0.31), while macro recall (0.35) and macro specificity (0.67) were similar across prompts. Confusion matrices showed improved discrimination of completely ruptured ACLs with P3.
conclusionsDespite a minor improvement in the weighted F1-score with Prompt 3, all prompts demonstrate poor overall classification performance, with low sensitivity and accuracy. The consistently overlapping confidence intervals indicate that prompt variations alone are insufficient to meaningfully enhance model performance. These findings suggest fundamental limitations in the model's ability to handle this task rather than suboptimal prompting.
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.