ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Performance of vision language models for optic disc swelling identification on fundus photographs.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative artificial intelligence to augment ethical problem solving in ophthalmology: GPT-5.1 versus a human ethicist.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Large language models for ophthalmic examination understanding: from information extraction to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Vision language models (VLMs) combine image analysis capabilities with large language models (LLMs). Because of their multimodal capabilities, VLMs offer a clinical advantage over image classification models for the diagnosis of optic disc swelling by allowing a consideration of clinical context. In this study, we compare the performance of non-specialty-trained VLMs with different prompts in the classification of optic disc swelling on fundus photographs. Methods: A diagnostic test accuracy study was conducted utilizing an open-sourced dataset. Five different prompts (increasing in context) were used with each of five different VLMs (Llama 3.2-vision, LLaVA-Med, LLaVA, GPT-4o, and DeepSeek-4V), resulting in 25 prompt-model pairs. The performance of VLMs in classifying photographs with and without optic disc swelling was measured using Youden's index (YI), F1 score, and accuracy rate. Results: A total of 779 images of normal optic discs and 295 images of swollen discs were obtained from an open-source image database. Among the 25 prompt-model pairs, valid response rates ranged from 7.8% to 100% (median 93.6%). Diagnostic performance ranged from YI: 0.00 to 0.231 (median 0.042), F1 score: 0.00 to 0.716 (median 0.401), and accuracy rate: 27.5 to 70.5% (median 58.8%). The best-performing prompt-model pair was GPT-4o with role-playing with Chain-of-Thought and few-shot prompting. On average, Llama 3.2-vision performed the best (average YI across prompts 0.181). There was no consistent relationship between the amount of information given in the prompt and the model performance. Conclusions: Non-specialty-trained VLMs could classify photographs of swollen and normal optic discs better than chance, with performance varying by model. Increasing prompt complexity did not consistently improve performance. Specialty-specific VLMs may be necessary to improve ophthalmic image analysis performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.