Large-scale evaluation of multimodal large language models for pneumothorax detection.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Diagnostic and interventional radiology Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-12 DOI:10.4274/dir.2026.263696
Hamza Eren Güzel, Cemre Özenbaş, Ali Murat Koç
{"title":"Large-scale evaluation of multimodal large language models for pneumothorax detection.","authors":"Hamza Eren Güzel, Cemre Özenbaş, Ali Murat Koç","doi":"10.4274/dir.2026.263696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Pneumothorax requires rapid recognition and accurate interpretation of chest X-rays (CXRs), particularly in acute settings where delays can have serious consequences. With the emergence of advanced image interpretation models capable of visual analysis, their diagnostic reliability in radiology practice remains to be determined. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of three state-of-the-art systems in detecting pneumothorax using a large, well-annotated dataset.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 10,675 CXRs from the publicly available SIIM-ACR Pneumothorax Segmentation dataset were analyzed. Three multimodal models (GPT-4o, Gemini 2 Pro, and Claude 4 Sonnet) were evaluated using a uniform, image-based approach. Each model's binary outputs (presence: 1, absence: 0) were compared with reference results to determine accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 scores. Additional subgroup analyses were conducted across pneumothorax size categories: small, medium, and large. Pairwise statistical comparisons were performed using McNemar's test. Sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy are reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The prevalence of pneumothorax in the dataset was 22.3% (n = 2,379). All models demonstrated high specificity (above 0.90) but consistently low sensitivity (0.16-0.36). The best overall performance was observed with Gemini 2, which achieved an accuracy of 0.79 and specificity of 0.95, whereas Claude 4 showed greater sensitivity (0.20-0.34) across lesion-size categories. Diagnostic performance improved with increasing pneumothorax size, but smaller lesions remained difficult to identify. Pairwise comparisons confirmed statistically significant differences among all evaluated systems (<i>P</i> < 0.050).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this large-scale evaluation, the tested models exhibited strong reliability in identifying normal examinations but limited ability to detect subtle or small pneumothoraxes. Despite high specificity, low sensitivity limits the use of current multimodal large language models as rule-out tools for pneumothorax. With continued refinement, these models may eventually support radiologists by improving workflow efficiency and diagnostic confidence.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Automated systems capable of high specificity but low sensitivity should not be relied upon to exclude pneumothorax. However, they may serve as valuable assistants for confirming positive findings and prioritizing urgent cases in busy clinical workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":11341,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","volume":" ","pages":"585-590"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13530647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2026.263696","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Pneumothorax requires rapid recognition and accurate interpretation of chest X-rays (CXRs), particularly in acute settings where delays can have serious consequences. With the emergence of advanced image interpretation models capable of visual analysis, their diagnostic reliability in radiology practice remains to be determined. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of three state-of-the-art systems in detecting pneumothorax using a large, well-annotated dataset.

Methods: A total of 10,675 CXRs from the publicly available SIIM-ACR Pneumothorax Segmentation dataset were analyzed. Three multimodal models (GPT-4o, Gemini 2 Pro, and Claude 4 Sonnet) were evaluated using a uniform, image-based approach. Each model's binary outputs (presence: 1, absence: 0) were compared with reference results to determine accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 scores. Additional subgroup analyses were conducted across pneumothorax size categories: small, medium, and large. Pairwise statistical comparisons were performed using McNemar's test. Sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy are reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

Results: The prevalence of pneumothorax in the dataset was 22.3% (n = 2,379). All models demonstrated high specificity (above 0.90) but consistently low sensitivity (0.16-0.36). The best overall performance was observed with Gemini 2, which achieved an accuracy of 0.79 and specificity of 0.95, whereas Claude 4 showed greater sensitivity (0.20-0.34) across lesion-size categories. Diagnostic performance improved with increasing pneumothorax size, but smaller lesions remained difficult to identify. Pairwise comparisons confirmed statistically significant differences among all evaluated systems (P < 0.050).

Conclusion: In this large-scale evaluation, the tested models exhibited strong reliability in identifying normal examinations but limited ability to detect subtle or small pneumothoraxes. Despite high specificity, low sensitivity limits the use of current multimodal large language models as rule-out tools for pneumothorax. With continued refinement, these models may eventually support radiologists by improving workflow efficiency and diagnostic confidence.

Clinical significance: Automated systems capable of high specificity but low sensitivity should not be relied upon to exclude pneumothorax. However, they may serve as valuable assistants for confirming positive findings and prioritizing urgent cases in busy clinical workflows.

气胸检测的多模态大语言模型的大规模评价。
目的:气胸需要快速识别和准确解释胸部x光片(cxr),特别是在急性情况下,延误可能会导致严重后果。随着能够进行视觉分析的先进图像解释模型的出现,其在放射学实践中的诊断可靠性仍有待确定。本研究旨在评估三个最先进的系统在使用大型、注释良好的数据集检测气胸方面的诊断性能。方法:对公开的SIIM-ACR气胸分割数据集中的10675例cxr进行分析。使用统一的基于图像的方法对三种多模式模型(gpt - 40、Gemini 2 Pro和Claude 4 Sonnet)进行评估。将每个模型的二值输出(存在:1,缺失:0)与参考结果进行比较,以确定准确性、灵敏度、特异性、精密度和F1评分。在气胸大小类别中进行了额外的亚组分析:小、中、大。采用McNemar检验进行两两统计比较。灵敏度、特异性和总体准确度均有相应的95%置信区间。结果:数据集中气胸的患病率为22.3% (n = 2379)。所有模型均显示高特异性(高于0.90),但始终较低敏感性(0.16-0.36)。Gemini 2的总体表现最好,其准确度为0.79,特异性为0.95,而Claude 4在病变大小类别中表现出更高的灵敏度(0.20-0.34)。随着气胸大小的增加,诊断性能提高,但较小的病变仍然难以识别。两两比较证实了所有评估系统之间的统计学差异(P < 0.050)。结论:在这项大规模的评估中,所测试的模型在识别正常检查方面表现出很强的可靠性,但检测细微或小气胸的能力有限。尽管特异性高,但低灵敏度限制了当前多模态大语言模型作为气胸排除工具的使用。随着不断的改进,这些模型可能最终通过提高工作流程效率和诊断信心来支持放射科医生。临床意义:不应依赖高特异性但低敏感性的自动化系统来排除气胸。然而,在繁忙的临床工作流程中,它们可以作为确认阳性结果和优先处理紧急病例的宝贵助手。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostic and interventional radiology
Diagnostic and interventional radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
自引率
4.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Diagn Interv Radiol) is the open access, online-only official publication of Turkish Society of Radiology. It is published bimonthly and the journal’s publication language is English. The journal is a medium for original articles, reviews, pictorial essays, technical notes related to all fields of diagnostic and interventional radiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书