ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Zero-shot segmentation and tumor diameter measurement of soft tissue sarcomas on MRI using a multimodal large language model.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the zero-shot capabilities of a multimodal deep learning model (Gemini 3.0) in segmenting Soft Tissue Sarcomas (STS) on MRI and to compare the accuracy of tumor diameter measurements derived from automated segmentation versus direct model estimation.
methodsThis retrospective study utilized a public dataset (The Cancer Imaging Archive) consisting of 51 patients (mean age, 54.8 ± 17.0 years; 24 men, 27 women) with histologically confirmed STS. Gemini 3.0 performed zero-shot lesion segmentation and direct diameter estimation on a fat-suppressed T2-weighted or STIR image. Segmentation accuracy was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) against manual segmentation by a board-certified radiologist. Tumor diameters derived from Gemini segmentation masks and direct estimates were compared with manual measurements using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Bootstrap analysis was performed to compare the performance of the two automated measurement methods.
resultsGemini generated segmentation masks with a mean DSC of 0.935 ± 0.082, comparable to inter-radiologist agreement (0.949 ± 0.037) and showing high reproducibility (DSC, 0.981 ± 0.038). For tumor size assessment, the segmentation-derived measurement yielded an ICC of 0.976, significantly higher than the direct estimation ICC of 0.922 (p = 0.027). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a smaller mean bias for the segmentation-based approach (-0.5 mm) compared with direct estimation (-5.0 mm).
conclusionsGemini 3.0 achieved high accuracy in zero-shot segmentation of STS on MRI. Deriving quantitative measurements from automated segmentation proved significantly more reliable than direct size estimation by the large language model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573778What 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.