ArticleMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Diagnostic Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models for Central Venous Catheter Assessment Chest Radiographs in the Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Medical sciences (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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest radiography remains central to post-procedural assessment of central venous catheter (CVC) placement in intensive care units. Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process medical images, but their reliability for practical radiography tasks remains uncertain. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of MLLMs and intensivists for CVC access classification, CVC tip assessment, and pneumothorax-related radiographic findings.
methodsIn this retrospective diagnostic performance study, consecutive portable anteroposterior chest radiographs obtained after CVC placement in adult critically ill patients were independently evaluated by four intensivists and five MLLMs. A radiologist consensus served as the reference standard. Interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance were assessed using Fleiss' kappa, Gwet AC1, Cohen's kappa, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1 score, balanced accuracy, and Matthews correlation coefficient.
resultsThe final cohort included 183 unique radiographs. Intensivist reviewers showed high performance for CVC access classification but lower and more heterogeneous performance for CVC tip-position assessment. Among MLLMs, CVC access accuracy ranged from 0.339 to 0.874, whereas CVC tip assessment was dominated by almost universal classification of tips as appropriate, with near-zero specificity and chance-level balanced accuracy. For pneumothorax-related findings, all MLLMs classified every case as negative. Intensivist reviewers had higher balanced accuracy than MLLMs for CVC access classification (difference, 0.420; 95% CI, 0.349-0.490;
conclusionsThe evaluated MLLMs showed unreliable diagnostic performance compared with experienced intensivists. Apparent performance was influenced by class imbalance and dominant-response behavior, supporting cautious task-specific validation and complete diagnostic performance reporting.
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.