Clinical referral text overrides MRI evidence in multimodal large language models: glioma versus brain abscess
Beste, N. C.; Bauer, F.; Lopez, N.; Schoemig, T.; Schoenfeld, M.; Zopfs, D.; Goertz, L.; Persigehl, T.; Kabbasch, C.; Schlamann, M.; Maintz, D.; Gertz, R. J.; Weitzer, N.; Kottlors, J.
Show abstract
Objectives: To determine how strongly clinical referral text, rather than image content, drives the decisions of multimodal large language models (LLMs) differentiating glioma from brain abscess on MRI. Materials and methods: This retrospective single-center study included 60 contrast-enhanced T1-weighted brain MRI examinations (30 gliomas, 30 abscesses; reference-standard diagnosis). One axial slice per case was paired with five referral texts (explicitly inflammatory to explicitly tumor-suggestive) under three prompt instructions and submitted 20 times each to GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and Qwen 3.6 (72,000 answers). The primary outcome was the text-driven span (difference in tumor-call frequency between explicit inflammatory and explicit tumor text). Two blinded radiologists classified the images without text; sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared descriptively. Results: Patients (29 women) had a mean age of 55.8 +/- 16.4 years. With neutral text, models answered tumor in 45-67% of queries (specificity, 0.38-0.78), versus 52% and 60% for radiologists (specificity, 0.77 and 0.63). The text-driven span was 0.79-1.00 (p < 0.001 for all models), whereas confirmed gliomas and abscesses differed by only 0.01-0.10 in three models and 0.25 in Gemini 3.5 Flash. Subtle wording produced at least 83% of the span in three models. An instruction to ignore the text reduced the span to 0.48-0.70 in three models and to 0.04 in Gemini 3.5 Flash, partly through reversion to a tumor default. Model accuracy was 0.52-0.73 versus 0.78 and 0.73 for radiologists. Conclusion: Multimodal LLMs deferred to referral text over imaging evidence in differentiating glioma from brain abscess, and prompt instructions did not reliably correct this.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Brain MRI Protocols: Performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B 94%
- Assessing GPT-4 Multimodal Performance in Radiological Image Analysis 91%
- Deep-learning-based white matter lesion volume in CT is associated with outcome after acute ischemic stroke 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated Tumor Segmentation and Brain Tissue Extraction from Multiparametric MRI of Pediatric Brain Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Study 92%
- Early prognostication of overall survival for pediatric diffuse midline gliomas using MRI radiomics and machine learning 90%
- Pediatric brain tumor classification using deep learning on MR-images with age fusion 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Image-localized Biopsy Mapping of Brain Tumor Heterogeneity: A Single-Center Study Protocol 90%
- Intraoperative 3D quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in paediatric brain tumour surgery 90%
- tbiExtractor: A framework for Extracting Traumatic Brain Injury Common Data Elements from Radiology Reports 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Deep neural networks allow expert-level brain meningioma detection, segmentation and improvement of current clinical practice 91%
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 91%
- Inconsistency of AI in Intracranial Aneurysm Detection with Varying Dose and Image Reconstruction 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- From Tool to Teammate: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinician-AI Collaborative Workflows for Diagnosis 90%
- A Clinical Neuroimaging Platform for Rapid, Automated Lesion Detection and Personalized Post-Stroke Outcome Prediction 89%
- Bridging the Literacy Gap for Surgical Consents: An AI-Human Expert Collaborative Approach 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.