Are Multimodal LLMs Ready for Clinical Dermatology? A Real-World Evaluation in Dermatology

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04098v1
• Date: Fri, 01 May 2026 02:54:07 GMT
• Title: Are Multimodal LLMs Ready for Clinical Dermatology? A Real-World Evaluation in Dermatology
• Abstract summary: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promise on publicly available dermatology benchmarks.<n>We evaluated four open-weight MLLMs (InternVL-Chat v1.5, LLaVA-Med v1.5, SkinGPT4 and MedGemma-4B-Instruct) and one commercial MLLM (GPT-4.1) across three publicly available dermatology datasets.<n> Diagnostic performance was modest on public datasets and declined substantially in the real-world cohort.
• Score: 6.096816682256677
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promise on publicly available dermatology benchmarks. However, benchmark performance may not generalize to real-world dermatologic decision-making. To quantify this benchmark-to-bedside gap, we evaluated four open-weight MLLMs (InternVL-Chat v1.5, LLaVA-Med v1.5, SkinGPT4 and MedGemma-4B-Instruct) and one commercial MLLM (GPT-4.1) across three publicly available dermatology datasets and a retrospective multi-site hospital-based dermatology consultation cohort comprising 5,811 cases and 46,405 clinical images. Models were evaluated on two clinically relevant tasks: differential diagnosis generation and severity-based triage. Diagnostic performance was modest on public datasets and declined substantially in the real-world cohort. On public benchmarks, top-3 diagnostic accuracy reached 26.55% for the best open-weight model and 42.25% for GPT-4.1. On real-world consultation cases using images alone, top-3 diagnostic accuracy fell to 1.50%-13.35% among open-weight models and 24.65% for GPT-4.1. Incorporating clinical context improved performance across all models, increasing top-3 diagnostic accuracy up to 28.75% among open-weight models and 38.93% for GPT-4.1. However, model outputs were highly sensitive to incomplete or erroneous consultation context. For severity-based triage, models achieved moderate sensitivity (above 60%), suggesting potential utility for screening but insufficient reliability for clinical deployment. These findings demonstrate that benchmark performance substantially overestimates the real-world clinical capability of current dermatology MLLMs.

Related papers

• A rubric-based controlled comparison of frontier language models on expert-authored clinical reasoning tasks [0.0]
  We present a small, deliberately difficult evaluation dataset of five clinician-authored clinical scenarios spanning four specialties.<n>We evaluate three frontier models: GPT 5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, and Gemini 3.1 Pro.<n>The central finding is an inversion of clinical priority: the highest-weighted (weight-5, critical) criteria passed at only 32.4-41.7%, while low-stakes weight-1 criteria passed at 80-90%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T13:46:24Z)
• A Decade-Scale Benchmark Evaluating LLMs' Clinical Practice Guidelines Detection and Adherence in Multi-turn Conversations [60.2076951536797]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare scenarios.<n>It is unclear to which extend LLMs could identify and adhere to clinical guidelines during conversations.<n>CPGBench is an automated framework benchmarking the clinical guideline detection and adherence capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T09:00:55Z)
• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• DermoGPT: Open Weights and Open Data for Morphology-Grounded Dermatological Reasoning MLLMs [54.8829900010621]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show promise for medical applications, yet progress in dermatology lags due to limited training data, narrow task coverage, and lack of clinically-grounded supervision.<n>We present a comprehensive framework to address these gaps.<n>First, we introduce DermoInstruct, a large-scale morphology-anchored instruction corpus comprising 211,243 images and 772,675 trajectories across five task formats.<n>Second, we establish DermoBench, a rigorous benchmark evaluating 11 tasks across four clinical axes: Morphology, Diagnosis, Reasoning, and Fairness, including a challenging subset of 3,600
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T07:55:36Z)
• Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
  We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z)
• MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks [47.486705282473984]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical exams.<n>These evaluations inadequately reflect complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice.<n>We introduce MedHELM, an evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T22:55:49Z)
• A Modular Approach for Clinical SLMs Driven by Synthetic Data with Pre-Instruction Tuning, Model Merging, and Clinical-Tasks Alignment [46.776978552161395]
  Small language models (SLMs) offer a cost-effective alternative to large language models such as GPT-4.<n>SLMs offer a cost-effective alternative, but their limited capacity requires biomedical domain adaptation.<n>We propose a novel framework for adapting SLMs into high-performing clinical models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T21:40:21Z)
• LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation [29.913581347375256]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making.<n>Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process.<n>LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T02:43:54Z)
• The Case Records of ChatGPT: Language Models and Complex Clinical Questions [0.35157846138914034]
  The accuracy of large language AI models GPT4 and GPT3.5 in diagnosing complex clinical cases was investigated. GPT4 and GPT3.5 accurately provided the correct diagnosis in 26% and 22% of cases in one attempt, and 46% and 42% within three attempts, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T16:58:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.