Cited by 52Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Potential of multimodal large language models for data mining of medical images and free-text reports

Open access
Zhang, Yutong, Pan, Yi, Zhong, Tianyang, Dong, Peixin, Xie, Kangni, Liu, Yuxiao, Jiang, Hanqi, Wu, Zihao +9 more·2024·Meta-Radiology

Abstract

Medical images and radiology reports are essential for physicians to diagnose medical conditions . However, the vast diversity and cross-source heterogeneity inherent in these data have posed significant challenges to the generalizability of current data-mining methods for clinical decision-making. Recently, multimodal large language models (MLLMs), especially Gemini-Vision-series (Gemini) and GPT-4-series (GPT-4) models, have revolutionized numerous domains, significantly impacting the medical field. In this study, we conducted a detailed evaluation of the performance of the Gemini series models (including Gemini-1.0-Pro-Vision, Gemini-1.5-Pro, and Gemini-1.5-Flash) and GPT series models (including GPT-4o, GPT-4-Turbo, and GPT-3.5-Turbo) across 14 medical datasets, covering 5 medical imaging categories (dermatology, radiology, dentistry , ophthalmology , and endoscopy) and 3 radiology report datasets. The investigated tasks encompass disease classification , lesion segmentation , anatomical localization, disease diagnosis, report generation, and lesion detection. Moreover, we also validated the performance of the Claude-3-Opus, Yi-Large, Yi-Large-Turbo, and LLaMA 3 models to gain a comprehensive understanding of the MLLM models in the medical field. Our experimental results demonstrated that Gemini-series models excelled in report generation and lesion detection but faces challenges in disease classification and anatomical localization. Conversely, GPT-series models exhibited proficiency in lesion segmentation and anatomical localization but encountered difficulties in disease diagnosis and lesion detection. Additionally, both the Gemini series and GPT series contain models that have demonstrated commendable generation efficiency. While both models hold promise in reducing physician workload, alleviating pressure on limited healthcare resources, and fostering collaboration between clinical practitioners and artificial intelligence technologies, substantial enhancements and comprehensive validations remain imperative before clinical deployment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.metrad.2024.100103

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Zhang et al.'s Gemini models produced R-1 scores of 0.2814, R-2 scores of 0.1334, and R-L scores of 0.2259 on the MIMIC-CXR dataset.

    “Gemini models that the authors used in their work produced R-1 scores of 0.2814, R-2 scores of 0.1334, and R-L scores of 0.2259 on the MIMIC-CXR dataset.”
  • Zhang et al. incorporated LLMs that gave R-1 0.2814, R-2 0.1334, and R-L 0.2259 on the MIMIC-CXR dataset.

    “To enhance this system, Zhang et al. (34) incorporated large language models (LLMs) that gave R-1 scores of 0.2814, R-2 scores of 0.1334 and R-L scores of 0.2259 on the MIMIC-CXR dataset.”
  • This version outperformed the previous one in lesion detection and reporting but requires more practice in different clinical environments.

    “This version outperformed the previous one in lesion detection and reporting but requires more practice in different clinical environments.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Y., Pan, Y., Zhong, T., Dong, P., Xie, K., Liu, Y., Jiang, H., Wu, Z., Liu, Z., Zhao, W., Zhang, W., Zhao, S., Zhang, T., Jiang, X., Shen, D., Liu, T., & Zhang, X.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • ShanghaiTech University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Yutong
  • Zhang, Wei
  • Zhang, Tuo
  • Zhang, Xin
Venue
Meta-Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-12
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
100103
ISSN
2950-1628 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402701904
Cited by
52
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 3
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Meta-Radiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62376221, 31971288, 62131009, 62476291)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
multimodal large language models, medical image analysis, radiology reports, Gemini, GPT-4, disease classification, lesion segmentation, anatomical localization, report generation, lesion detection, dermatology, radiology, ophthalmology, endoscopy, clinical decision support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review