Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41855191›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Visual recognition limitations in multimodal large language models: A comparative analysis of histological image interpretation.

Volodymyr Mavrych, Einas M Yousef, Ahmed Yaqinuddin, Aftab Ahmed Shaikh, Olena Bolgova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Volodymyr MavrychCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1159-4573
Einas M YousefCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8935-0183
Ahmed YaqinuddinCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Aftab Ahmed ShaikhCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Olena BolgovaCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9496-9754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multimodal large language models (LLMs) with image recognition capabilities have emerged as potential tools for medical image analysis, yet their performance in specialized domains like histology remains largely unexplored. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the performance of leading multimodal LLMs in histological image interpretation and assess their visual recognition capabilities. Four multimodal LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Copilot) were evaluated using 144 histological images representing four tissue types (epithelial, connective, muscle, and nervous) at three magnification levels. Each image was assessed using three standardized questions: tissue identification, morphological features, and functional analysis. Three expert faculty members independently graded responses using a 4-point scale (1 = Poor to 4 = Excellent). Friedman tests, ICC, and post-hoc power analyses were performed with statistical significance set at p < .05. A clear performance hierarchy emerged with Gemini demonstrating superior performance (mean score: 3.35/4.00), significantly outperforming all other models. Copilot and GPT-4o tied for second place (both 2.76/4.00), while Claude showed the lowest performance (2.55/4.00). Performance varied across tissue types, with epithelial tissue showing the greatest inter-model variation. Inter-rater reliability was good across all models (ICC > 0.85), confirming assessment consistency. Post-hoc power analysis validated statistical significance for primary comparisons but indicated insufficient power to distinguish between the three lower-performing models. Current multimodal LLMs exhibit significant limitations in visual recognition relative to text processing performance. The substantial cross-modal performance gaps reveal some constraints in visual processing architectures, though the underlying mechanisms require further investigation. These findings establish technical benchmarks for multimodal LLM development and highlight the need for specialized visual processing innovations in their imaging processes.

Identifiers

PMID41855191
PMCPMC13001936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.