ReviewNature biomedical engineering2026
Foundation models in biomedical imaging: turning hype into reality.
Review in Nature biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial stupidity or logimorphism? How misuse of language warps our thinking about 'artificial intelligence'.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- CT-to-PET Synthesis in the Head-Neck and Thoracic Region via Conditional 3D Latent Diffusion Modeling.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intelligent Support for Radiotherapy: A Review of Clinical Applications for Large Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Will AI Replace Physicians in the Near Future? AI Adoption Barriers in Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foundation models (FMs) are driving a prominent shift in biomedical imaging, from task-specific models to unified backbone models for diverse tasks. This opens an avenue to integrate imaging, pathology, clinical records and genomics data into a composite system. However, this vision contrasts sharply with modern medicine's trajectory towards more granular sub-specialization. This tension, coupled with data scarcity, domain heterogeneity and limited interpretability, creates a gap between benchmark success and real-world clinical value. We argue that the immediate role of FMs lies in augmenting, not replacing, clinical expertise. To separate hype from reality, we introduce real-world evaluation and assessment of FMs (REAL-FM), a multi-dimensional framework assessing data, technical readiness, clinical value, workflow integration and responsible artificial intelligence. Using REAL-FM, we find that although FMs excel in pattern recognition they fall short on causal reasoning, domain robustness and safety. Clinical translation is hindered by scarce representative data for model training, unverified generalization beyond over-simplified benchmark settings and a lack of prospective outcome-based validation. This Perspective provides clinicians with a practical way to interpret FM claims, identify where these systems may safely support imaging workflows and recognize why human oversight remains indispensable. For developers, it defines the validation, workflow, safety and governance requirements that must be met before FMs can become clinically reliable tools. We envision that the path forward lies not in a monolithic medical oracle, but in coordinated subspecialist AI systems that are transparent, safe and clinically grounded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42595819What 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.