ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Benchmarking Multimodal Vision Frontier Models With Lumbar Spine MRIs for Grading Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Global spine journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignDiagnostic accuracy study.ObjectivePrior evaluations of frontier models as radiology decision-support tools relied on 2-dimensional images or text reports; their ability to interpret volumetric data remains unclear. This study assessed Google Gemini 3 Pro for grading lumbar spinal canal stenosis on video lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and evaluated diagnostic accuracy, agreement with neuroradiologist consensus, and the effect of localizer-assisted input.MethodsThe Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 2024 Lumbar Spine Degenerative Classification Dataset, with American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) consensus labels, served as a reference benchmark; interobserver agreement among contributing readers was not reported. 100 examinations yielded 500 disc-level observations (371 normal/mild, 74 moderate, 55 severe), demonstrating marked class imbalance. Native imaging series were converted into synchronized video montages. Gemini 3 Pro generated one grade per disc level with and without localizer overlays. Primary outcome was linearly weighted kappa (κw); secondary outcomes included class-wise performance, severe-case error patterns, and overall accuracy.ResultsWithout localizer, overall accuracy was 75.6% (378/500) with fair agreement (κw = 0.39). Severe stenosis sensitivity was 41.8%; 43.6% of severe cases were downgraded to normal/mild, and 58.2% to non-severe. With localizer overlays, accuracy was 73.2% (366/500) with κw = 0.32, and severe sensitivity decreased to 30.9%; severe-to-normal/mild misses increased to 52.7%. Differences were not significant.ConclusionsGemini 3 Pro showed fair agreement with the neuroradiologist consensus benchmark, but apparent overall accuracy was inflated by the majority normal/mild class and masked clinically unacceptable under-detection of severe stenosis. Localizer-assisted input did not improve performance.
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.