ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Research: Modality Dependence and Limited Visual-Spatial Integration in Multimodal Large Language Models for Breast Cancer Histopathology.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly considered for cancer diagnostic support, yet their suitability for histopathological image interpretation remains inadequately characterized. We evaluated six contemporary general-purpose MLLMs (Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Haiku 4.5, ChatGPT 5.3, Grok 4.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro) on 58 paired hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained breast cancer histopathology images (26 malignant, 32 benign) and corresponding nuclei segmentation masks. Each case was classified five times per model under three conditions, image only (IMAGE), mask only (MASK), and both combined (BOTH), yielding 5220 observations. Mean accuracy dropped from 69.4% (IMAGE) to 49.6% (MASK), below the majority-class baseline of 55.2%. Providing the mask together with the image did not improve classification (68.0%), and for ChatGPT 5.3 produced a net loss of 31 correct predictions. Models maintained elevated mean confidence (67.6) under MASK despite near-random accuracy, and reasoning categories shifted in 67.5% of matched case-run pairs between modalities. Under the conditions tested, current general-purpose MLLMs exhibit strong dependence on visual surface features, fail to effectively integrate spatial structural information, and maintain confidence independent of accuracy. These behavioral limitations are directly relevant to the safe deployment of MLLMs in cancer diagnostic workflows.
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.