PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 5, 2026Diagnostics1 citationsOpen Access

Opportunities and Challenges of Visual Large Language Models in Imaging Diagnostics: Lessons from Brain Metastasis Detection in Clinical MRI

View Full Paper
CNChristian NellesNZNour Abou ZeidRTRobert Terzis

Key Points

  • Evaluate the diagnostic performance of visual large language models for detecting brain metastases in MRI scans.
  • Retrospective analysis of MRI scans from 31 patients with and 46 without brain metastases.
  • Utilized two vLLMs, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 3.5, with imaging and clinical data.
  • Assessed detection accuracy, overdiagnosis, and sequence identification.
  • Both models had perfect sensitivity (100%) but low specificity (GPT-4o: 8%, Sonnet 3.5: 4%).
  • Diagnostic accuracy was low (GPT-4o: 54%, Sonnet 3.5: 52%).
  • Sequence identification was highly accurate, with GPT-4o performing better (100% vs. 93%).
  • Both models falsely identified additional lesions in 12% of cases.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two visual large language models (vLLMs), GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 (Anthropic), for detecting brain metastases in routine MRI using combined imaging and textual input. Methods: This retrospective study included 31 patients with and 46 without brain metastases with underlying melanoma (n = 24), lung cancer (n = 23), breast cancer (n = 17), or renal cell carcinoma (n = 13). In total, 100 MRI examinations (50 with, 50 without metastases) were provided to both vLLMs using a single representative slice per sequence, together with clinical history and the referring question. The generated free-text reports were evaluated for detection accuracy, overdiagnosis, correct sequence recognition, anatomical localization, lesion laterality, and lesion size estimation. Results: Both vLLMs showed perfect sensitivity (100% for both) but very low specificity (GPT-4o: 8%, Sonnet 3.5: 4%; p = 0.625), resulting in low diagnostic accuracy (GPT-4o: 54%, Sonnet 3.5: 52%; p = 0.625). Sequence identification was highly accurate in both models, with GPT-4o performing significantly better (100% vs. 93%; p < 0.05). Identification of the anatomical brain region (70% vs. 72%; p = 1.00) and lesion laterality (62% vs. 76%; p = 0.189) was comparable. Both models hallucinated additional lesions in 12% of cases. Lesion size measurements showed no significant differences between the models or in comparison with the radiologist. Conclusions: GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 3.5 can generate radiological reports and detect brain metastases with excellent sensitivity, but their very low specificity, frequent hallucinations, and limited spatial reliability currently preclude clinical application. Future work should address how the balance between visual and textual input influences diagnostic behavior in vLLMs.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nelles et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a91e4cd6127c7a504c2251https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16050749
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper