Back

Three multimodal large language models fail at clinically actionable breast pathology in three different directions

Kang, Y.-J.; Jun, S.-Y.; Kim, S.

2026-06-22 pathology
10.64898/2026.06.18.26355928 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Breast cancer treatment depends on histopathological features, such as grade and receptor-defined subtype; however, specialist pathologist access is constrained when the workforce is limited. Commercial multimodal large language models (MLLMs) accept hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) image tiles through paid interfaces without local hardware or fine-tuning. However, prior pathology evaluations addressed only coarse tasks. Whether they reach treatment-determining accuracy and whether vendors agree remain unclear. Methods. We aimed to evaluate three vendor-designated flagship MLLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5.5) in 427 invasive breast cancer cases. Each case went to all three with identical H&E tiles and prompts, and the subtype was inferred in the second call. The reference was an institutional sign-out report of an immunohistochemistry-derived subtype. We calculated the concordance, sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa, and pairwise McNemar and Bowker tests. Findings. Claude ranked highest by raw histologic-type concordance but lowest by kappa, classifying all 23 lobular and seven micropapillary carcinomas as invasive breast carcinoma of no special type. The models anchored the Nottingham grade to three modal grades. None of the models reliably identified human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive disease. The failure direction was vendor-specific: Claude and GPT-5.5 were under-detected, whereas Gemini was over-called. Twelve prompt variants (4,056 calls) did not recover sensitivity. Interpretation. No current commercial MLLM reaches deployment-ready accuracy for any treatment-determining feature of breast pathology. As each vendor fails in its own fixed direction, changing vendors alters the type of error rather than removing it; therefore, the value of these models is assistive rather than autonomous. At USD 0.20-0.50 per case, they may serve as supervised draft generators that leave the diagnosis with the pathologist.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.8%
3
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
Journal of Pathology Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 16%
5.5%
7
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.5%
9
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
10
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
11
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
12
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
13
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
14
The American Journal of Pathology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
15
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
17
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.3%
18
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
19
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
20
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
22
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
The Journal of Pathology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
24
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
25
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
26
JID Innovations
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
27
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%