ArticleScientific reports2026
Benchmarks and methods for 3D medical image retrieval.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing use of medical imaging in healthcare settings presents a significant challenge due to the additional workload for radiologists, yet it also offers opportunity for enhancing healthcare outcomes if effectively leveraged. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based 3D medical image retrieval holds the potential to alleviate radiologists' burden by offering evidence-based diagnostics and predictions that can enhance the scale and accuracy of radiologists' work, while simultaneously supporting output verification for safety and regulatory compliance. Despite its promise, the field of 3D medical image retrieval lacks established evaluation benchmarks, comprehensive datasets, and rigorous evaluation studies. This paper aims to address these gaps by introducing the first benchmark for 3D Medical Image Retrieval (3D-MIR) and evaluating various pre-trained models and implementation approaches for retrieval. The benchmark includes four anatomies (Liver, Colon, Pancreas, and Lung) imaged using computed tomography (CT). A range of 3D image search strategies are explored, including those that use aggregated 2D slices/3D volumes (Image-to-Image) and text embeddings from popular foundation models as queries (Text-to-Image). Additionally, novel multi-modal and supervised fine-tuning approaches are investigated to generate multi-modal embeddings for 3D image retrieval. The paper provides quantitative and qualitative assessments of each approach, along with an in-depth discussion offering insights for future research and solutions to support clinical decision-making and healthcare applications. To foster advancement in this field, our benchmark, models, and code are made publicly available.
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.