Yiming Kong

Hyunjae Kim, Dain Kim, Pan Xiao et al.

Medicine is inherently multimodal, requiring clinicians to synthesize information across diverse data streams. Yet the development of multimodal foundation models is constrained by limited access to large-scale, high-quality clinical data. Although PubMed Central (PMC) offers a complementary source of expert-authored image-text data, existing PMC-derived resources remain limited in fidelity, reproducibility, and clinical validation. We introduce MedPMC, an automated, continuously updatable framework that transforms permissively licensed literature into high-fidelity infrastructure for medical multimodal models. Applied to 6.1 million PMC articles, MedPMC curated 11 million medical image-text pairs. Component evaluations showed strong performance for initial screening (F1 = 93.2), multi-panel figure detection (F1 = 96.5), figure separation (mAP = 89.8), caption separation and alignment (F1 = 81.4; ROUGE-L = 85.3), and medical figure classification (F1 = 96.5). Manual review by five annotators, three with medical training, found 95.3% of MedPMC images medically relevant, versus 19.7% in a prior PMC-derived dataset. Across 26 benchmarks spanning 11 specialties, a MedPMC-trained CLIP-style model improved average zero-shot AUC by 7.1 percentage points over the strongest architecture-matched biomedical CLIP baseline despite using fewer than half as many image-text pairs. As the vision encoder in a multimodal large language model, it improved medical visual question-answering by 1.9 and 16.9 percentage points across two benchmarks. In 10,524 Yale New Haven Health System dermatology photographs, it improved morphology-to-image retrieval Recall@5 by 11.7 percentage points. These findings show that high-fidelity literature curation strengthens medical multimodal foundation models across benchmark and clinical settings. We publicly release the framework, corpus, benchmarks, and pretrained models.

Sahana Srinivasan, Xuguang Ai, Minjie Zou et al.

Question: What is the performance and reasoning ability of OpenAI o1 compared to other large language models in addressing ophthalmology-specific questions? Findings: This study evaluated OpenAI o1 and five LLMs using 6,990 ophthalmological questions from MedMCQA. O1 achieved the highest accuracy (0.88) and macro-F1 score but ranked third in reasoning capabilities based on text-generation metrics. Across subtopics, o1 ranked first in ``Lens'' and ``Glaucoma'' but second to GPT-4o in ``Corneal and External Diseases'', ``Vitreous and Retina'' and ``Oculoplastic and Orbital Diseases''. Subgroup analyses showed o1 performed better on queries with longer ground truth explanations. Meaning: O1's reasoning enhancements may not fully extend to ophthalmology, underscoring the need for domain-specific refinements to optimize performance in specialized fields like ophthalmology.

Sahana Srinivasan, Xuguang Ai, Thaddaeus Wai Soon Lo et al.

Current benchmarks evaluating large language models (LLMs) in ophthalmology are limited in scope and disproportionately prioritise accuracy. We introduce BELO (BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology), a standardized and comprehensive evaluation benchmark developed through multiple rounds of expert checking by 13 ophthalmologists. BELO assesses ophthalmology-related clinical accuracy and reasoning quality. Using keyword matching and a fine-tuned PubMedBERT model, we curated ophthalmology-specific multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) from diverse medical datasets (BCSC, MedMCQA, MedQA, BioASQ, and PubMedQA). The dataset underwent multiple rounds of expert checking. Duplicate and substandard questions were systematically removed. Ten ophthalmologists refined the explanations of each MCQ's correct answer. This was further adjudicated by three senior ophthalmologists. To illustrate BELO's utility, we evaluated six LLMs (OpenAI o1, o3-mini, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Llama-3-8B, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using accuracy, macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BARTScore, METEOR, and AlignScore). In a further evaluation involving human experts, two ophthalmologists qualitatively reviewed 50 randomly selected outputs for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and completeness. BELO consists of 900 high-quality, expert-reviewed questions aggregated from five sources: BCSC (260), BioASQ (10), MedMCQA (572), MedQA (40), and PubMedQA (18). A public leaderboard has been established to promote transparent evaluation and reporting. Importantly, the BELO dataset will remain a hold-out, evaluation-only benchmark to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons of future models.