ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Visual recognition limitations in multimodal large language models: A comparative analysis of histological image interpretation.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of radiological anatomy knowledge and accuracy of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and Grok 4 across normal and thinking modes.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Assessment of CDASI scoring by a multimodal large language model: a comparative study with expert assessors.Rheumatology international · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.