Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42344950›Full record

Articlenpj computational materials2026

Vision language models for scientific image analysis: an evaluation highlighting opportunities and challenges.

Prateek Verma, Minh-Hao Van, Xintao Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in npj computational materials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Prateek VermaDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR USA.
Minh-Hao VanDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR USA.
Xintao WuDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR USA.

Funding

Unraveling Gene-Environment Interactions Shaping Metabolism: A Multi-Omics Analysis in DrosophilaP20GM139768 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT FAYETTEVILLE · PI Joanna Fiddler · 2021 to 2026
$17.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM139768
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advancements in vision language models (VLMs) have opened new avenues for analyzing complex visual data. Models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama and LLaVA have gained prominence for their ability to process both visual and textual data, excelling in tasks like natural image captioning, visual question answering (VQA), and reasoning. Similarly, the Segment Anything Model (SAM) by Meta has demonstrated remarkable segmentation capabilities. Given the importance of microscopy images in fields like biology, medicine, and materials science-where visual data is often analyzed alongside textual information from captions, reports, or literature-it is critical to evaluate the effectiveness of these models on such data. This study assesses the capabilities of ChatGPT-5, Gemini-2.5Pro, Llama-3.2V, LLaVA-1.5 and SAM-2 on classification, segmentation, counting, and VQA tasks using microscopy images. ChatGPT and Gemini excelled in comprehending microscopy images, while SAM performed well in object isolation. Although their performance falls short of domain expert accuracy, particularly when faced with complexities such as impurities, overlaps, and irrelevant artifacts, these models show clear gains compared to prior versions. These findings highlight the promise of VLMs in scientific image analysis and the need for further advancements to meet the demands of expert-level tasks.

Indexed as

Electrical and electronic engineeringMaterials science

Identifiers

PMID42344950
PMCPMC13287007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.