Articlenpj computational materials2026
Vision language models for scientific image analysis: an evaluation highlighting opportunities and challenges.
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.
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
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
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.