ArticlePediatric radiology2026
Zero-shot performance of a general-purpose vision-language model for pediatric appendicitis diagnosis.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral-purpose vision-language models can analyze medical images without task-specific training, but their value for pediatric abdominal ultrasound is unknown.
objectiveTo investigate the zero-shot performance of a general-purpose vision-language model to diagnose pediatric appendicitis using multimodal inputs, including images, report text, and clinical information. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, diagnostic capabilities of Llama 4 Maverick were evaluated on the Regensburg Pediatric Appendicitis Dataset. Five experiments were conducted using the following inputs as well as input combinations: images only, ultrasound report text only, images and ultrasound text, images and clinical data, entire multimodal input. Reference standard of appendicitis was defined based on histopathology in patients who underwent surgical resection and on clinical follow-up in patients managed conservatively. Performance was assessed at the patient level using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1-score. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was evaluated secondarily as a measure of discrimination.
resultsOf 782 patients, 294 met inclusion criteria; based on data availability, four experiments are conducted using 293 patients and in the fifth experiment, 284. Images-only experiment showed very low specificity (13.5%) and had the poorest discrimination (AUROC, 0.567). Ultrasound report text improved classification performance, with specificity increasing to 63.5% while maintaining high sensitivity; discrimination was also strong (AUROC, 0.883). Adding images to ultrasound text or combining all available inputs did not yield further meaningful improvement. Differences between images-only experiment and text-containing experiments were statistically significant (P≤0.002).
conclusionZero-shot visual interpretation of pediatric abdominal ultrasound by a general-purpose vision-language model is inadequate for safe appendicitis diagnosis. Performance is driven primarily by a structured sonographic imaging report, supporting a role for such models as text-based decision support tools rather than autonomous ultrasound image interpreters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257728What 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.