Is Multimodal Better? A Systematic Review of Multimodal versus Unimodal Machine Learning in Clinical Decision-Making
Benani, A.; Ohayon, S.; Laleye, F.; Bauvin, P.; Messas, E.; Bodard, S.; Tannier, X.
Show abstract
Machine learning has demonstrated success in clinical decision-making, yet the added value of multimodal approaches over unimodal models remains unclear. This systematic review evaluates studies comparing multimodal and unimodal ML algorithms for diagnosis, prognosis, or prescription. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE up to January 2025 identified 97 studies across 12 medical specialties, with oncology being the most represented. The most common data fusion involved tabular data and images (67%). A risk of bias assessment using PROBAST revealed that 57% of studies had a low risk of bias, while 41% had a high risk. Multimodality outperformed unimodality in 91% cases. No correlation between dataset sample size and added performance has been observed. However, considerable methodological heterogeneity and potential publication bias warrant caution in interpretation. Further research is needed to refine evaluation metrics and hybrid model architectures based on specific clinical tasks. MeSH TermsHumans [B01.050.150.900.649.313.988.400.112.400.400], Machine Learning [L01.224.050.375.530], Clinical Decision-Making [E01.055], Systematic Review [V03.850].
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Adoption of the OMOP CDM for Cancer Research using Real-world Data: Current Status and Opportunities 93%
- The clinician-AI interface: intended use and explainability in FDA-cleared AI devices for medical image interpretation 93%
- Predicting critical state after COVID-19 diagnosis: Model development using a large US electronic health record dataset 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 95%
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 93%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Empirical Sample Size Determination for Popular Classification Algorithms in Clinical Research 93%
- An Interpretable Machine Learning Framework for Accurate Severe vs Non-severe COVID-19 Clinical Type Classification 92%
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.