Evaluating Conversational Image Segmentation for Medicine: Performance, Failure Modes, and a Fairness Audit Across Seven Modalities
Do, J.; Guggilla, N.; Suresh, V.; Kothari, R.
Show abstract
IntroductionMedical-image segmentation underpins quantitative diagnostics and research, yet state-of-the-art models remain task-specific and data-hungry. The recent emergence of powerful, multimodal large language models (LLMs) presents a generalizable option; however, their efficacy in the specialized medical domain remains largely unquantified. We aim to benchmark the foundational Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite models for zero-shot medical image segmentation and evaluate them for potential bias in performance. MethodsThe models were tested on 13,086 medical images spanning seven distinct imaging modalities (endoscopy, fundoscopy, dermoscopy, laparoscopy, ultrasound, radiography, and CT) and 10 clinically relevant segmentation targets (e.g., colorectal polyps, skin lesions, liver tumors). Prompts followed a standard template ("Segment the ... in this image."). Per-image Dice and Intersection-over-Union (IoU) were computed against publicly released expert masks. Bias was assessed on 4,057 dermoscopy images split by Individual-Typology-Angle (ITA) into Light (> 28{degrees}, n = 3,499) and Dark ([≤] 28{degrees}, n = 558) groups. ResultsFlash achieved a mean Dice=0.766 (IoU=0.680) for colorectal polyp segmentation, Dice=0.761 (IoU=0.672) for skin lesion segmentation, Dice=0.824 (IoU=0.736) for optic disc segmentation, and Dice=0.718 (IoU=0.616) for surgical tool segmentation, outperforming Flash-Lite by approximately 0.1 Dice points. Accuracy declined on low-contrast radiological tasks (Liver Mass CT Dice=0.071). In the fairness audit, Flash produced a successful mask for 2,839/3,499 light-tone images (81.2%) versus 378/558 dark-tone images (67.7%); {chi}{superscript 2} = 51.8, p < 0.001. Using all images, mean IoU=0.686 for light tones and IoU=0.591 for dark tones (Kruskal-Wallis H = 62.6, p < 0.001); Cliffs {delta} = -0.208 (95% CI - 0.259 to -0.159). DiscussionGemini 2.5 Flash delivers competitive accuracy on high-contrast photographic datasets at negligible cost. Performance is weaker on radiographic modalities (ultrasound, CT, chest radiography), and in dermoscopy, we observe lower accuracy on darker ITA skin-tone groups. This study informs the field where foundational LLMs are deployment-ready for medical image segmentation and where targeted debiasing or domain adaptation is required.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Detecting Signs of Tuberculosis on Chest Radiographs among US-bound Immigrants and Refugees 95%
- Designing a computer-assisted diagnosis system for cardiomegaly detection and radiology report generation 93%
- Assessing generalizability of an AI-based visual test for cervical cancer screening 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Generating synthetic data in digital pathology through diffusion models: a multifaceted approach to evaluation 94%
- Opportunistic Assessment of Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Using Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography and Medical Record Data: a Multimodal Explainable Artificial Intelligence Approach 94%
- Reproducible And Clinically Translatable Deep Neural Networks For Cervical Screening 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Crowdsourcing Approach to Develop Machine Learning Models to Quantify Radiographic Joint Damage in Rheumatoid Arthritis 92%
- Evaluation of an artificial intelligence model for detection of pneumothorax and tension pneumothorax on chest radiograph 90%
- Diagnostic Codes in AI prediction models and Label Leakage of Same-admission Clinical Outcomes 88%
"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.