Comparative Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in Grayscale Ultrasound-Based Classification of Thyroid Nodules.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ziman Chen, Yingli Wang, Fei Chen
{"title":"Comparative Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in Grayscale Ultrasound-Based Classification of Thyroid Nodules.","authors":"Ziman Chen, Yingli Wang, Fei Chen","doi":"10.1053/j.sult.2026.08.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Multimodal large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for medical image analysis, but their relative performance in thyroid ultrasound remains unclear. This study aimed to compare 6 publicly available multimodal LLMs for grayscale ultrasound-based classification of thyroid nodules. This prospective cross-sectional study included 178 patients with 239 thyroid nodules who underwent preoperative thyroid ultrasound followed by histopathological confirmation. Cropped grayscale ultrasound images of the maximal transverse and longitudinal views were analyzed by 6 publicly available multimodal LLMs: ChatGPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, Qwen3.6-Plus, Kimi K2.5, and ERNIE 5.0. All models were evaluated using the same image-input workflow and a standardized prompt, without fine-tuning or task-specific retraining. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa, and diagnostic performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Radiologist benchmarks were included for comparison. All 6 LLMs significantly distinguished benign from malignant nodules (all P ≤ 0.001). Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved the best overall performance, with a kappa value of 0.580 and an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 77.1% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.7%). ChatGPT-5.4 and Qwen3.6-Plus each yielded an AUC of 73.5%, and Kimi K2.5 achieved an AUC of 71.3%. Claude Opus 4.6 and ERNIE 5.0 showed lower overall performance, with AUCs of 65.7% and 59.9%, respectively. The senior radiologist achieved higher diagnostic performance than all 6 LLMs. Publicly available multimodal LLMs showed measurable but heterogeneous performance in grayscale ultrasound-based thyroid nodule classification. Gemini 3.1 Pro demonstrated the best overall results, but none of the models matched senior radiologist-level performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":49541,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Ultrasound Ct and Mri","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Ultrasound Ct and Mri","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2026.08.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multimodal large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for medical image analysis, but their relative performance in thyroid ultrasound remains unclear. This study aimed to compare 6 publicly available multimodal LLMs for grayscale ultrasound-based classification of thyroid nodules. This prospective cross-sectional study included 178 patients with 239 thyroid nodules who underwent preoperative thyroid ultrasound followed by histopathological confirmation. Cropped grayscale ultrasound images of the maximal transverse and longitudinal views were analyzed by 6 publicly available multimodal LLMs: ChatGPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, Qwen3.6-Plus, Kimi K2.5, and ERNIE 5.0. All models were evaluated using the same image-input workflow and a standardized prompt, without fine-tuning or task-specific retraining. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa, and diagnostic performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Radiologist benchmarks were included for comparison. All 6 LLMs significantly distinguished benign from malignant nodules (all P ≤ 0.001). Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved the best overall performance, with a kappa value of 0.580 and an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 77.1% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.7%). ChatGPT-5.4 and Qwen3.6-Plus each yielded an AUC of 73.5%, and Kimi K2.5 achieved an AUC of 71.3%. Claude Opus 4.6 and ERNIE 5.0 showed lower overall performance, with AUCs of 65.7% and 59.9%, respectively. The senior radiologist achieved higher diagnostic performance than all 6 LLMs. Publicly available multimodal LLMs showed measurable but heterogeneous performance in grayscale ultrasound-based thyroid nodule classification. Gemini 3.1 Pro demonstrated the best overall results, but none of the models matched senior radiologist-level performance.

多模态大语言模型在基于灰度超声的甲状腺结节分类中的比较性能。
背景:多模态大语言模型(LLMs)越来越多地被用于医学图像分析,但其在甲状腺超声中的相对性能尚不清楚。目的:本研究旨在比较六种公开可用的多模态llm用于基于灰度超声的甲状腺结节分类。方法:本前瞻性横断面研究纳入178例239个甲状腺结节患者,术前行甲状腺超声检查并进行组织病理学证实。采用ChatGPT-5.4、Gemini 3.1 Pro、Claude Opus 4.6、Qwen3.6-Plus、Kimi K2.5和ERNIE 5.0这6个公开的多模态LLMs软件对最大横向和纵向视图裁剪的灰度超声图像进行分析。所有模型都使用相同的图像输入工作流程和标准化提示进行评估,没有微调或特定任务的再培训。采用Cohen’s kappa评估一致性,采用受试者工作特征(ROC)分析评估诊断表现。纳入放射科医师基准进行比较。结果:6例LLMs均能明显区分良恶性结节(P均≤0.001)。Gemini 3.1 Pro总体表现最佳,kappa值为0.580,ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为77.1% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.7%)。ChatGPT-5.4和Qwen3.6-Plus的AUC均为73.5%,Kimi K2.5的AUC为71.3%。Claude Opus 4.6和ERNIE 5.0的整体表现较差,auc分别为65.7%和59.9%。这位资深放射科医生的诊断表现高于所有6位llm。结论:公开可用的多模态llm在基于灰度超声的甲状腺结节分类中表现出可测量但不均匀的性能。Gemini 3.1 Pro显示出最好的总体结果,但没有一个模型达到高级放射科医生的水平。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI is directed to all physicians involved in the performance and interpretation of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging procedures. It is a timely source for the publication of new concepts and research findings directly applicable to day-to-day clinical practice. The articles describe the performance of various procedures together with the authors'' approach to problems of interpretation.
×
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