ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Medical visual question answering with multimodal: a systematic mini review (2023-2026).
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical visual question answering (Med-VQA) has emerged as a critical application of artificial intelligence within a short period of time. Large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) have fundamentally rewritten the architecture of medical question answering (QA). This study aims to systematically analyze recent developments in Med-VQA. Like past methods, which were simple, text-heavy database systems, there has been a shift toward multimodal frameworks. Recent methods are now highly capable of explaining radiology, pathology, and dermatological images along with clinical questions. This review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, covering 27 representative studies published in various databases, using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings reveal a clear shift toward generative models, supported by retrieval mechanisms and structured reasoning strategies such as Chain-of-Thought and multi-agent frameworks. Generative models, along with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and preference optimization, are not just more consistent than traditional classification-based methods but also can enable free-form clinical question answering. Though frameworks like multi-agent and hierarchical CoT have significantly improved interpretability and mitigated hallucinations, they also come with some limitations, like higher computational time, multi-view analysis, multi-lingual question answering, lack of standardized evaluation and exploration, domain-specific evaluation, and real-world clinical settings. Med-VQA systems demonstrate significant potential as a clinical decision answer generation with a vision language model. Future work should focus on computational efficiency during real-world validation, fairness evaluation, standardized diagnostic benchmarks, and interpretable reasoning frameworks including specialized domain knowledge and practical skills.
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.