arXiv subjects

Serina Applebaum

Publications and source records attributed to Serina Applebaum.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

VOLMO: Versatile and Open Large Models for Ophthalmology

Vision impairment affects millions globally, and early detection is critical to preventing irreversible vision loss. Ophthalmology workflows require clinicians to integrate medical images, structured clinical data, and free-text notes to determine disease severity and management, which is time-consuming and burdensome. Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show promise, but existing general and medical MLLMs perform poorly in ophthalmology, and few ophthalmology-specific MLLMs are openly available. We present VOLMO (Versatile and Open Large Models for Ophthalmology), a model-agnostic, data-open framework for developing ophthalmology-specific MLLMs. VOLMO includes three stages: ophthalmology knowledge pretraining on 86,965 image-text pairs from 26,569 articles across 82 journals; domain task fine-tuning on 26,929 annotated instances spanning 12 eye conditions for disease screening and severity classification; and multi-step clinical reasoning on 913 patient case reports for assessment, planning, and follow-up care. Using this framework, we trained a compact 2B-parameter MLLM and compared it with strong baselines, including InternVL-2B, LLaVA-Med-7B, MedGemma-4B, MedGemma-27B, and RETFound. We evaluated these models on image description generation, disease screening and staging classification, and assessment-and-management generation, with additional manual review by two healthcare professionals and external validation on three independent cohorts for age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Across settings, VOLMO-2B consistently outperformed baselines, achieving stronger image description performance, an average F1 of 87.4% across 12 eye conditions, and higher scores in external validation.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

From Compound Figures to Composite Understanding: Developing a Multi-Modal LLM from Biomedical Literature with Medical Multiple-Image Benchmarking and Validation

Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have shown promise in advancing healthcare. However, most existing models remain confined to single-image understanding, which greatly limits their applicability in clinical workflows. In practice, medical diagnosis and progression often require synthesizing information across multiple images from different modalities or time points. The development of medical MLLMs capable of such multi-image understanding has been hindered by the lack of large-scale, high-quality annotated training data. To address this limitation, we propose a novel framework that leverages license-permissive compound images in biomedical literature, as a rich yet underutilized data source for multi-image analysis. Specifically, we design a five-stage, context-aware instruction generation paradigm underpinned by a divide-and-conquer strategy. By decomposing multi-image analysis into manageable sub-tasks, this paradigm empowers MLLMs to move beyond single-panel analysis and provide a composite understanding by learning the complex spatial, temporal, and cross-modal relationships inherent in these compound figures. By parsing over 237,000 compound figures and their contextual text for instruction generation, we develop M3LLM, a medical multi-image multi-modal large language model. For benchmarking, we construct PMC-MI-Bench for composite understanding, manually validated by medical experts. Extensive experiments show that M3LLM significantly outperforms both general-purpose and specialized medical MLLMs across multi-image, single-image, text-only, and multi-choice scenarios. Notably, M3LLM exhibits strong generalization to longitudinal chest X-ray analysis using the MIMIC dataset. This work establishes a scalable and efficient paradigm for developing medical MLLMs capable of composite reasoning, bridging the gap between biomedical literature and real-world clinical applications.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Rethinking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine: A Large-Scale, Systematic Expert Evaluation and Practical Insights

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming the landscape of medicine, yet two fundamental challenges persist: keeping up with rapidly evolving medical knowledge and providing verifiable, evidence-grounded reasoning. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has been widely adopted to address these limitations by supplementing model outputs with retrieved evidence. However, whether RAG reliably achieves these goals remains unclear. Here, we present the most comprehensive expert evaluation of RAG in medicine to date. Eighteen medical experts contributed a total of 80,502 annotations, assessing 800 model outputs generated by GPT-4o and Llama-3.1-8B across 200 real-world patient and USMLE-style queries. We systematically decomposed the RAG pipeline into three components: (i) evidence retrieval (relevance of retrieved passages), (ii) evidence selection (accuracy of evidence usage), and (iii) response generation (factuality and completeness of outputs). Contrary to expectation, standard RAG often degraded performance: only 22% of top-16 passages were relevant, evidence selection remained weak (precision 41-43%, recall 27-49%), and factuality and completeness dropped by up to 6% and 5%, respectively, compared with non-RAG variants. Retrieval and evidence selection remain key failure points for the model, contributing to the overall performance drop. We further show that simple yet effective strategies, including evidence filtering and query reformulation, substantially mitigate these issues, improving performance on MedMCQA and MedXpertQA by up to 12% and 8.2%, respectively. These findings call for re-examining RAG's role in medicine and highlight the importance of stage-aware evaluation and deliberate system design for reliable medical LLM applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Humans and Large Language Models in Clinical Decision Support: A Study with Medical Calculators

Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using licensing exams, their ability to support clinical decision-making, such as selecting medical calculators, remains uncertain. We assessed nine LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 multiple-choice question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and compared LLMs to humans on a subset of questions. While the highest-performing LLM, OpenAI o1, provided an answer accuracy of 66.0% (CI: 56.7-75.3%) on the subset of 100 questions, two human annotators nominally outperformed LLMs with an average answer accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). Ultimately, we evaluated medical trainees and LLMs in recommending medical calculators across clinical scenarios like risk stratification and diagnosis. With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (49.3% of errors) and calculator knowledge (7.1% of errors), our findings highlight that LLMs are not superior to humans in calculator recommendation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation

The rising prevalence of eye diseases poses a growing public health burden. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making. However, few have been tailored for ophthalmology, and most evaluations focus mainly on knowledge-based QA without clinically relevant benchmarks or real-world validation. Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process: (1) instruction tuning on 200,000 samples from clinical guidelines, textbooks, and case reports to enhance reasoning and task-following, and (2) reinforcement learning with ~30,000 preference labels to enhance accuracy and informativeness. LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning. It outperformed all seven baselines (all p < 0.004), exceeding GPT-4o by 3.32% (absolute ROUGE-L gain). It was further evaluated on three downstream tasks using deidentified patient data, reviewed by clinicians. In patient QA, LEME received the highest ratings from attending clinicians in 3 out of 4 criteria, with scores of 4.67 for factuality, 4.77 for specificity, 4.79 for completeness, and 4.88 for safety (1-5 scale). Its completeness score surpassed that of expert-written answers (4.79 vs. 4.56; p = 0.015). In visual acuity extraction, LEME achieved the highest F1, outperforming LLaMA-3 by 14.1% and Eye-LLaMA by 59.0%. In a pilot evaluation on assessment and treatment planning for diabetic retinopathy, AMD, and glaucoma, LEME received scores of 4.36 for factuality, 4.55 for specificity, 4.42 for completeness, and 4.36 for safety, approaching attending-level performance. All models, data, and code will be released to support further development and clinical translation, laying the groundwork for improved efficiency and patient care

cs.CL↗