Lorenzo De Mori

Francesco Andrea Causio, Vittorio De Vita, Olivia Riccomi et al.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated high proficiency on English-centric medical examinations, their performance often declines when faced with non-English languages and multimodal diagnostic tasks. This study protocol describes the development of EuropeMedQA, the first comprehensive, multilingual, and multimodal medical examination dataset sourced from official regulatory exams in Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal. Following FAIR data principles and SPIRIT-AI guidelines, we describe a rigorous curation process and an automated translation pipeline for comparative analysis. We evaluate contemporary multimodal LLMs using a zero-shot, strictly constrained prompting strategy to assess cross-lingual transfer and visual reasoning. EuropeMedQA aims to provide a contamination-resistant benchmark that reflects the complexity of European clinical practices and fosters the development of more generalizable medical AI.

Federico Felizzi, Olivia Riccomi, Michele Ferramola et al.

Large vision language models (VLMs) have achieved impressive performance on medical visual question answering benchmarks, yet their reliance on visual information remains unclear. We investigate whether frontier VLMs demonstrate genuine visual grounding when answering Italian medical questions by testing four state-of-the-art models: Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5-mini, and Gemini 2.0 flash exp. Using 60 questions from the EuropeMedQA Italian dataset that explicitly require image interpretation, we substitute correct medical images with blank placeholders to test whether models truly integrate visual and textual information. Our results reveal striking variability in visual dependency: GPT-4o shows the strongest visual grounding with a 27.9pp accuracy drop (83.2% [74.6%, 91.7%] to 55.3% [44.1%, 66.6%]), while GPT-5-mini, Gemini, and Claude maintain high accuracy with modest drops of 8.5pp, 2.4pp, and 5.6pp respectively. Analysis of model-generated reasoning reveals confident explanations for fabricated visual interpretations across all models, suggesting varying degrees of reliance on textual shortcuts versus genuine visual analysis. These findings highlight critical differences in model robustness and the need for rigorous evaluation before clinical deployment.