Jamil S Samaan

Seyed Amir Ahmad Safavi-Naini, Shuhaib Ali, Omer Shahab et al.

Background and Aims: This study evaluates the medical reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) and vision language models (VLMs) in gastroenterology. Methods: We used 300 gastroenterology board exam-style multiple-choice questions, 138 of which contain images to systematically assess the impact of model configurations and parameters and prompt engineering strategies utilizing GPT-3.5. Next, we assessed the performance of proprietary and open-source LLMs (versions), including GPT (3.5, 4, 4o, 4omini), Claude (3, 3.5), Gemini (1.0), Mistral, Llama (2, 3, 3.1), Mixtral, and Phi (3), across different interfaces (web and API), computing environments (cloud and local), and model precisions (with and without quantization). Finally, we assessed accuracy using a semiautomated pipeline. Results: Among the proprietary models, GPT-4o (73.7%) and Claude3.5-Sonnet (74.0%) achieved the highest accuracy, outperforming the top open-source models: Llama3.1-405b (64%), Llama3.1-70b (58.3%), and Mixtral-8x7b (54.3%). Among the quantized open-source models, the 6-bit quantized Phi3-14b (48.7%) performed best. The scores of the quantized models were comparable to those of the full-precision models Llama2-7b, Llama2--13b, and Gemma2-9b. Notably, VLM performance on image-containing questions did not improve when the images were provided and worsened when LLM-generated captions were provided. In contrast, a 10% increase in accuracy was observed when images were accompanied by human-crafted image descriptions. Conclusion: In conclusion, while LLMs exhibit robust zero-shot performance in medical reasoning, the integration of visual data remains a challenge for VLMs. Effective deployment involves carefully determining optimal model configurations, encouraging users to consider either the high performance of proprietary models or the flexible adaptability of open-source models.

Mohammadreza Ghaffarzadeh-Esfahani, Mahdi Ghaffarzadeh-Esfahani, Arian Salahi-Niri et al.

This study compared the performance of classical feature-based machine learning models (CMLs) and large language models (LLMs) in predicting COVID-19 mortality using high-dimensional tabular data from 9,134 patients across four hospitals. Seven CML models, including XGBoost and random forest (RF), were evaluated alongside eight LLMs, such as GPT-4 and Mistral-7b, which performed zero-shot classification on text-converted structured data. Additionally, Mistral- 7b was fine-tuned using the QLoRA approach. XGBoost and RF demonstrated superior performance among CMLs, achieving F1 scores of 0.87 and 0.83 for internal and external validation, respectively. GPT-4 led the LLM category with an F1 score of 0.43, while fine-tuning Mistral-7b significantly improved its recall from 1% to 79%, yielding a stable F1 score of 0.74 during external validation. Although LLMs showed moderate performance in zero-shot classification, fine-tuning substantially enhanced their effectiveness, potentially bridging the gap with CML models. However, CMLs still outperformed LLMs in handling high-dimensional tabular data tasks. This study highlights the potential of both CMLs and fine-tuned LLMs in medical predictive modeling, while emphasizing the current superiority of CMLs for structured data analysis.

Mohammad Amin Khalafi, Seyed Amir Ahmad Safavi-Naini, Ameneh Salehi et al.

Introduction: This study provides a comprehensive performance assessment of vision-language models (VLMs) against established convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and classic machine learning models (CMLs) for computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of colonoscopy polyp images. Method: We analyzed 2,258 colonoscopy images with corresponding pathology reports from 428 patients. We preprocessed all images using standardized techniques (resizing, normalization, and augmentation) and implemented a rigorous comparative framework evaluating 11 distinct models: ResNet50, 4 CMLs (random forest, support vector machine, logistic regression, decision tree), two specialized contrastive vision language encoders (CLIP, BiomedCLIP), and three general-purpose VLMs ( GPT-4 Gemini-1.5-Pro, Claude-3-Opus). Our performance assessment focused on two clinical tasks: polyp detection (CADe) and classification (CADx). Result: In polyp detection, ResNet50 achieved the best performance (F1: 91.35%, AUROC: 0.98), followed by BiomedCLIP (F1: 88.68%, AUROC: [AS1] ). GPT-4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to traditional machine learning approaches (F1: 81.02%, AUROC: [AS2] ), outperforming other general-purpose VLMs. For polyp classification, performance rankings remained consistent but with lower overall metrics. ResNet50 maintained the highest efficacy (weighted F1: 74.94%), while GPT-4 demonstrated moderate capability (weighted F1: 41.18%), significantly exceeding other VLMs (Claude-3-Opus weighted F1: 25.54%, Gemini 1.5 Pro weighted F1: 6.17%). Conclusion: CNNs remain superior for both CADx and CADe tasks. However, VLMs like BioMedCLIP and GPT-4 may be useful for polyp detection tasks where training CNNs is not feasible.