Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

Comprehensive Evaluation of Multimodal AI Models in Medical Imaging Diagnosis: From Data Augmentation to Preference-Based Comparison

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that general-purpose multimodal models, led by Llama 3.2-90B, produce diagnostic reports preferred over physician-authored reports in 85.27% of 3,000 abdominal CT cases.

desk verdict The paper's headline claim rests on an unvalidated LLM judge, so the numbers are not evidence of clinical superiority—but the framework is a useful cautionary example. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05536 v1 pith:4RAJ7NLA submitted 2024-12-07 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV

Cailian Ruan , Chengyue Huang , Yahe Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CLcs.CV
keywords multimodallargelanguagemodelsmedicalimagingdiagnosispreference-basedevaluationabdominalCTdataaugmentationmodelbenchmarkingLlama3.2-90BClaude3.5Sonnet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces an evaluation pipeline for testing multimodal AI models on abdominal CT diagnosis, starting from 500 clinical cases expanded by controlled augmentation to 3,000 image-text pairs. Its central claim is that general-purpose multimodal language models, led by Llama 3.2-90B, produce diagnoses that an independent AI assessor prefers over physician-authored diagnoses in 85.27% of cases, with the other general-purpose models above 79%. Specialized vision models such as BLIP2 and Llava are preferred in only 41.36% and 46.77% of cases, so the paper concludes that architecture matters more than medical specialization in these complex tasks. A sympathetic reader would care because the result suggests a practical path for AI-assisted diagnosis that does not require building new task-specific medical models.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a preference-based evaluation loop in which an independent large multimodal model, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, compares each AI-generated report with a physician-authored report and returns a three-way verdict (AI superior, physician superior, or equivalent). The pipeline standardizes inputs by pairing four sequential CT images with a textual image overview, expands the 500-case set to 3,000 through synchronized image and text augmentation, and feeds identical inputs to all candidate models. Preference rates then quantify how often the assessor judges the model's report better, and $\chi^2$ tests with Bonferroni correction are used to assess whether differences are significant.

What would settle it

Take a random subset of the 3,000 cases, strip the source labels from the AI and physician reports, and ask a blinded panel of radiologists to choose the better diagnosis. If the panel agrees with Claude 3.5 Sonnet's choices no better than chance, then the reported 85.27% preference rate cannot be taken as evidence that the model out-diagnoses humans.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when identical CT image sequences and clinical observations are given to several platforms, general-purpose multimodal models generate diagnostic assessments that an independent evaluator judges better than physician-authored reports in most cases, with Llama 3.2-90B preferred in 85.27% of 3,000 comparisons and only 1.39% rated equivalent. Claude 3.5 Sonnet serves as that independent assessor, assigning each comparison to one of three categories: AI superior, physician superior, or equivalent. The paper reports statistically significant differences ($p < 0.001$ for general-purpose models) and interprets the gap as evidence that broad multimodal training supports integration of multi-dimensional clinical information, whereas specialized vision models remain competent at individual finding detection but struggle with comprehensive diagnosis.

Load-bearing premise

The entire headline comparison rests on one premise: the AI judge Claude 3.5 Sonnet can reliably tell which of two diagnoses is clinically better, even though the paper never validates its judgments against radiologists or a ground-truth diagnosis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Llama 3.2-90B and the other general-purpose models really are preferred in roughly 80–85% of comparisons, then task-agnostic multimodal models are a viable starting point for clinical decision support without task-specific fine-tuning.
  • The reported gap between general-purpose and specialized vision models implies that architectural breadth contributes more to complex diagnostic reasoning than prior training on medical images alone.
  • The framework's preference rates could serve as a scalable automatic benchmark for future medical imaging models, reducing the need for manual expert scoring in early screening.
  • The near-zero equivalence rates reported for most models suggest the assessor finds clear winners in almost every case, which would mean AI and human reports are rarely judged equally good.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A reader should treat the preference rates as measuring what Claude 3.5 Sonnet judges, not as a clinical ground-truth comparison; the strongest version of the paper's conclusion depends on that judge being unbiased.
  • The framework could be tested on other imaging modalities, such as chest X-rays or MRIs, where human baseline reports are available, to see whether the same preference pattern holds.
  • Because the evaluator model belongs to the same general-purpose family as the candidates it judges, an independent human-validated subset of preference verdicts would be the natural next check on the headline numbers.
  • Measuring how the preference rates change with augmentation strength would clarify whether the report-level augmentations contribute to the apparent AI advantage or merely add harmless variation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript introduces an evaluation framework for multimodal AI models in medical imaging diagnosis. The authors built a pipeline that preprocesses and augments 500 clinical abdominal CT cases into 3,000 samples, runs six models (Llama 3.2-90B, GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini-1.5, BLIP2, Llava), and uses Claude 3.5 Sonnet as an independent assessor to classify each AI-generated versus physician-authored diagnosis as AI Superior, Physician Superior, or Equivalent. The headline result is that Llama 3.2-90B is preferred over human diagnoses in 85.27% of cases (Table I), and the paper concludes that general-purpose large multimodal models may outperform both specialized vision models and human physicians in certain diagnostic tasks.

Significance. If the findings were supported, the claim that general-purpose LLMs can outperform physicians in complex abdominal CT diagnosis would be of considerable interest to the medical imaging and AI communities. The paper provides a clear description of a structured evaluation pipeline, including augmentation hyperparameters, standardized model inputs, and a preference-based comparison scheme, which could serve as a useful template for future work. The study also covers multiple model architectures and reports per-model breakdowns, which is informative. However, the central quantitative claim rests entirely on the unvalidated preference judgments of Claude 3.5 Sonnet; no clinician ground truth, inter-rater reliability, or external benchmark is provided to establish that the LLM's preferences correspond to clinically meaningful superiority. Consequently, the paper's main conclusion is not supported by the evidence as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B and Section IV-C, Table I] The 85.27% AI-superiority rate for Llama 3.2-90B is based solely on Claude 3.5 Sonnet's three-way preference classification, and this judge is never validated against clinician judgment. The manuscript states in Section III-B that 'selective expert validation' is part of the quality-assurance process, but no results of such validation are reported anywhere, and the 8% radiologist review described in Section IV-A validates preservation of diagnostic features and image-report relationships, not the preference labels themselves. If Claude 3.5 Sonnet's preferences track report format, verbosity, or style rather than clinical correctness, every reported preference rate is contaminated. This issue is load-bearing because the conclusion in Section V that AI systems 'can surpass human experts' is essentially a restatement of the unvalidated judge's choices.
  2. [Section IV-A and Section IV-C] The chi-square tests treat the 3,000 augmented samples as independent observations, even though they are generated by applying controlled augmentations to 500 original cases. This pseudoreplication inflates the effective sample size six-fold, so the reported p-values (e.g., p < 0.001) do not provide valid evidence of differences between models. The statistical analysis should use the 500 independent cases as the unit of analysis, or a mixed-effects model that accounts for clustering by original case.
  3. [Section IV-B] The methodology states that 'we calculated confidence intervals for preference ratios,' but no confidence intervals are reported anywhere in Section IV-C, Table I, or the accompanying text. This omission prevents readers from assessing the precision of the preference rates and is a direct discrepancy between the stated analysis plan and the reported results.
  4. [Section III-B] The preference-based evaluation is not reproducible because the exact prompt used for Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not provided. The text refers to 'carefully crafted prompting strategies' and 'objective assessment standards,' but without the prompt, reviewers and future researchers cannot evaluate the potential biases in the judge's decision criteria or replicate the assessment. Given that the entire outcome measure depends on this prompt, its omission is a substantive gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract (Index Terms)] The index term 'LLMS' should be 'LLMs' for large language models.
  2. [References] References [7], [8], and [9] are about e-commerce recommendations, misinformation detection, and online content moderation, respectively; they are not related to medical imaging or multimodal diagnostics and should be removed or replaced with relevant citations.
  3. [Table I] The p-values labeled 0.047 and 0.052 for BLIP2 and Llava, respectively, would not survive a Bonferroni correction across the six models compared (threshold 0.05/6 ≈ 0.0083), yet the text states that 'statistical analysis confirms the significance of these performance differences.' This overstates the evidence for the specialized vision models.
  4. [Section IV-A] The text augmentation portion of the pipeline is described only as 'synonym substitution' and 'standardized rephrasing,' without giving examples or specifying the number of templates; this level of detail is insufficient for reproducibility of the augmentation procedure.
  5. [Section II-B and Section IV-C] The phrase 'preference rates exceeding 80%' in the conclusion is ambiguous; the table reports 'AI Superior' rates, not overall preference rates. Clarify that the 80% figure refers to the proportion of cases where the AI diagnosis was preferred by the LLM judge, not to a direct human preference measure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 85.27% 'superiority' claim is self-referential: the outcome measure is Claude 3.5 Sonnet's preference label, a judge that is itself a general-purpose LLM, and no clinician validation of those labels is reported.

  1. self definitional [Section III-B (Preference-based Evaluation); Table I / Section IV-C; Abstract; Section V]
    "We implement an innovative preference-based evaluation approach using Claude 3.5 Sonnet as an independent assessor. ... The evaluation framework employs a three-way classification system (AI Superior, Physician Superior, or Equivalent), considering factors such as diagnostic accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clinical relevance. ... The results demonstrate a clear performance distinction ... with Llama 3.2-90B achieving the highest preference rate of 85.27% over human diagnoses."

    By the paper's own operationalization, 'AI Superior' is defined as Claude 3.5 Sonnet's classification, and the headline claim that Llama 3.2-90B 'outperforms human diagnoses in 85.27% of cases' (Abstract) is exactly the share of cases the judge labeled AI Superior. Claude is itself a general-purpose LLM, the same class whose superiority is concluded in Section V ('AI systems can surpass human experts').

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim — 'Llama 3.2-90B outperforming human diagnoses in 85.27% of cases' (Abstract) — reduces, by the paper's own methodology, to the proportion of cases in which Claude 3.5 Sonnet, the sole judge, assigned the label 'AI Superior' (Section III-B; Table I). Because Claude 3.5 Sonnet is itself a general-purpose large multimodal model, the same class of system the paper concludes can 'surpass human experts' (Section V), the evaluation is self-referential: an LLM defines what counts as diagnostic superiority for a claim about LLM superiority. The paper asserts independence and objectivity ('independent assessor,' 'maintaining objective assessment standards') and asserts 'selective expert validation' and automatic edge-case review, but no expert validation of the preference labels is reported: the 8% radiologist review in Section IV-A verifies only preservation of diagnostic features and image-report relationships after augmentation. No clinician ground truth anchors the three-way categories, so the headline number and the conclusion coincide by construction. I did not treat the augmentation expansion (500 to 3,000 correlated copies) or the chi-square significance tests as circularity; those are statistical-validity concerns rather than definitional reductions. The self-citations (e.g., [4] by co-author Huang; unrelated padding citations [7]-[9]) are not load-bearing for the central claim. Had the preference labels been externally validated against clinician panels, or had the conclusion been scoped to 'preferred by an LLM judge,' the self-referentiality would not arise; as written, the central claim rests entirely on the unvalidated judge's choices, meriting partial-circularity score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. Its central claim rests on hand-chosen augmentation parameters and on untested assumptions about the validity of an LLM judge and augmented data.

free parameters (1)
  • Augmentation hyperparameters = rotation ±10°, translation within 10%, elastic deformation within 5%, contrast ±10%, brightness ±5%, Gaussian noise…
    Hand-chosen values in Section III-A/IV-A with no sensitivity analysis; they define the distribution of the 3,000 evaluation samples and thus influence the reported preference rates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The standardized image-text input (four CT images plus image overview) provides a fair and sufficient basis for both AI models and physicians to produce comparable diagnoses.
    Invoked throughout Section III; no task-based study verifies that physicians and models are operating on equivalent information.
  • domain assumption Claude 3.5 Sonnet's three-way preference ratings are a valid measure of diagnostic quality.
    Section III-B uses this judge without calibration against clinician panels or ground-truth diagnoses; the central result depends on this.
  • domain assumption Data augmentation preserves the diagnostic content and image-report pairing of the original cases.
    Section III-A states this is designed into the pipeline, but only 8% of cases were expert-reviewed, so equivalence for the remaining 92% is assumed.
  • domain assumption All six models can be compared fairly with identical image-text prompting despite different architectures and training.
    Section IV-A feeds the same input to all models; no per-model prompt adaptation or capability check is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive Evaluation of Multimodal AI Models in Medical Imaging Diagnosis: From Data Augmentation to Preference-Based Comparison." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RAJ7NLA

@misc{pith2026241205536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive Evaluation of Multimodal AI Models in Medical Imaging Diagnosis: From Data Augmentation to Preference-Based Comparison},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RAJ7NLA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05536}
}
read the original abstract

This study introduces an evaluation framework for multimodal models in medical imaging diagnostics. We developed a pipeline incorporating data preprocessing, model inference, and preference-based evaluation, expanding an initial set of 500 clinical cases to 3,000 through controlled augmentation. Our method combined medical images with clinical observations to generate assessments, using Claude 3.5 Sonnet for independent evaluation against physician-authored diagnoses. The results indicated varying performance across models, with Llama 3.2-90B outperforming human diagnoses in 85.27% of cases. In contrast, specialized vision models like BLIP2 and Llava showed preferences in 41.36% and 46.77% of cases, respectively. This framework highlights the potential of large multimodal models to outperform human diagnostics in certain tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Deep Learning Approach to Interface Color Quality Assessment in HCI

    cs.HC 2025-02 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The authors train a CNN on website screenshots to predict user ratings of color quality and report high agreement, but provide no architecture, dataset size, or held-out validation.

  2. Multi-Scale Transformer Architecture for Accurate Medical Image Classification

    cs.CV 2025-02 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A Transformer with a loosely defined multi-scale attention weighting is reported to achieve 89.5% accuracy on ISIC 2017 skin lesion classification.

  3. Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    On a public chest X-ray dataset, VGG19 is reported to outperform SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50 in accuracy, AUC, F1, and recall, but without a reproducible evaluation protocol.

  4. Computer Vision-Driven Gesture Recognition: Toward Natural and Intuitive Human-Computer

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A CNN-LSTM gesture recognizer with a decorative 3D skeleton visualization that reports unverifiable accuracy and speed numbers.

  5. Leveraging Convolutional Neural Network-Transformer Synergy for Predictive Modeling in Risk-Based Applications

    q-fin.RM 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A CNN+Transformer hybrid is reported to outperform tree-based baselines on credit default prediction, with accuracy 0.8197 and AUC 0.7921.

  6. Dynamic Scheduling Strategies for Resource Optimization in Computing Environments

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A weighted-sum container placement objective solved with a genetic algorithm is claimed to outperform static rules and heuristics on Google Cluster Data, but the comparison lacks methodology, baselines, and code.

  7. Machine Learning Techniques for Pattern Recognition in High-Dimensional Data Mining

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An SVM-based frequent pattern mining method is claimed to outperform FP-Growth, FP-Tree, decision trees, and random forests, but the paper provides no reproducible experimental support.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Electronic medical record context signatures improve diagnostic classification using medical image computing,

    S. Chaganti, L. Mawn, H. Kang, et al. , “Electronic medical record context signatures improve diagnostic classification using medical image computing,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , vol. 23, pp. 2052–2062, 2019. DOI: 10 . 1109 / JBHI . 2018 . 2890084

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Questionnaire and structural imaging data accurately predict headache improvement in patients with acute post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury,

    L. Mao, J. Li, T. J. Schwedt, et al. , “Questionnaire and structural imaging data accurately predict headache improvement in patients with acute post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury,” Cephalalgia, vol. 43, no. 5, p. 03 331 024 231 172 736, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Combining chest x-rays and electronic health record (ehr) data using machine learning to diag- nose acute respiratory failure,

    S. Jabbour, D. Fouhey, E. Kazerooni, J. Wiens, and M. Sjoding, “Combining chest x-rays and electronic health record (ehr) data using machine learning to diag- nose acute respiratory failure,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA , 2021. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac030

    work page doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac030 2021

  4. [4]

    Mental toll on working women during the covid-19 pandemic: An exploratory study using reddit data,

    C. Huang, A. Bandyopadhyay, W. Fan, A. Miller, and S. Gilbertson-White, “Mental toll on working women during the covid-19 pandemic: An exploratory study using reddit data,” PloS one, vol. 18, no. 1, e0280049, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Automatic segmentation of liver tumor in ct images with deep convolutional neural networks,

    W. J. Li, F. Jia, and Q. Hu, “Automatic segmentation of liver tumor in ct images with deep convolutional neural networks,” Journal of Computational Chemistry , vol. 03, pp. 146–151, 2015. DOI: 10.4236/JCC.2015. 311023

    work page doi:10.4236/jcc.2015 2015

  6. [6]

    Deep learn- ing with convolutional neural network for differentiation of liver masses at dynamic contrast-enhanced ct: A preliminary study.,

    K. Yasaka, H. Akai, O. Abe, and S. Kiryu, “Deep learn- ing with convolutional neural network for differentiation of liver masses at dynamic contrast-enhanced ct: A preliminary study.,”Radiology, vol. 286 3, pp. 887–896,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Leveraging large language models to enhance personalized recommendations in e- commerce,

    W. Xu, J. Xiao, and J. Chen, “Leveraging large language models to enhance personalized recommendations in e- commerce,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12829 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Detecting misin- formation in multimedia content through cross-modal entity consistency: A dual learning approach,

    Z. Fu, K. Wang, W. Xin, et al. , “Detecting misin- formation in multimedia content through cross-modal entity consistency: A dual learning approach,” PACIS 2024 Proceedings , 2024. [Online]. Available: https : / / aisel . aisnet . org / pacis2024 / track07 secprivacy / track07 secprivacy/2

    work page 2024

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    W. Xin, K. Wang, Z. Fu, and L. Zhou, Let community rules be reflected in online content moderation , 2024. arXiv: 2408 . 12035 [cs.SI]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12035

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Automatic de- tection and classification of diabetic retinopathy stages using cnn,

    R. Ghosh, K. Ghosh, and S. Maitra, “Automatic de- tection and classification of diabetic retinopathy stages using cnn,” 2017 4th International Conference on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks (SPIN) , pp. 550– 554, 2017. DOI: 10.1109/SPIN.2017.8050011

    2017

  3. [11]

    Mul- timodal llms for health grounded in individual-specific data,

    A. Belyaeva, J. Cosentino, F. Hormozdiari, et al., “Mul- timodal llms for health grounded in individual-specific data,” pp. 86–102, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2307. 09018

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    An integrated cluster-wise significance measure for fmri analysis,

    Y . Ge, G. Chen, J. A. Waltz, L. E. Hong, P. Kochunov, and S. Chen, “An integrated cluster-wise significance measure for fmri analysis,” Human Brain Mapping , vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 2444–2459, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Bayes estimate of primary threshold in clusterwise functional magnetic resonance imaging inferences,

    Y . Ge, S. Hare, G. Chen, et al. , “Bayes estimate of primary threshold in clusterwise functional magnetic resonance imaging inferences,” Statistics in medicine , vol. 40, no. 25, pp. 5673–5689, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Multimodal imaging of target detection algo- rithm under artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of early breast cancer,

    M. Jiang, S. Lei, J. Zhang, L. Hou, M. Zhang, and Y . Luo, “Multimodal imaging of target detection algo- rithm under artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of early breast cancer,”Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2022, 2022. DOI: 10.1155/2022/9322937

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Blip- 2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Blip- 2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,” pp. 19 730–19 742, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2301. 12597

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2304.08485, 2023. DOI: 10 . 48550/arXiv.2304.08485

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,

    C. Li, C. Wong, S. Zhang, et al., “Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2306.00890, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.00890

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cxr-llava: Multimodal large language model for interpreting chest x-ray images,

    S. Lee, J. Youn, M. Kim, and S. H. Yoon, “Cxr-llava: Multimodal large language model for interpreting chest x-ray images,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2310.18341, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.18341

    2023 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    High-speed dual-view band-limited illumination pro- filometry using temporally interlaced acquisition,

    C. Jiang, P. Kilcullen, Y . Lai, T. Ozaki, and J. Liang, “High-speed dual-view band-limited illumination pro- filometry using temporally interlaced acquisition,” Pho- tonics Research, 2020. DOI: 10.1364/PRJ.399492

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Guidelines for artificial intelligence in medicine: Literature review and content analysis of frameworks,

    N. L. Crossnohere, M. I. Elsaid, J. Paskett, S. Bose- Brill, and J. F. P. Bridges, “Guidelines for artificial intelligence in medicine: Literature review and content analysis of frameworks,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 24, 2022. DOI: 10.2196/36823

    2022 doi

  13. [2017]

    DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170706

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.