ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
An expert-level vision-language model for multitask diagnostic morphology in clinical laboratories.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microscopic morphology in clinical laboratories is expertise-intensive, variable across observers, and difficult to scale. We present Lingjian, a vision-language model tailored for laboratory morphology. Built on Qwen3-VL-8B and trained via multistage domain adaptation on more than 400,000 laboratory images with paired text and grounding supervision, Lingjian unifies image comprehension, cell identification, morphology description, and interpretation, and target localization. Across public benchmarks and cross-domain test sets, Lingjian shows robust multitask performance. On China's National Center for Clinical Laboratories External Quality Assessment (EQA, 2021-2025), it reached 93.0% overall accuracy, outperforming a human expert group (78.1%) and strong general models (e.g., Gemini-3 Pro, 75.3%). In a 120-case multireader multicase reader study, Lingjian's assistance improved junior-reader sensitivity for abnormal screening from 69.7% to 91.7% while maintaining high specificity (85.0% to 89.5%). Model weights and evaluation resources are released to support reproducibility.
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.