RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The Role of Prompt Engineering for Multimodal LLM Glaucoma Diagnosis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.10.30.24316434
DO 10.1101/2024.10.30.24316434
A1 Agbareia, Reem
A1 Omar, Mahmud
A1 Zloto, Ofira
A1 Chandala, Nisha
A1 Tai, Tania
A1 Glicksberg, Benjamin S
A1 Nadkarni, Girish N
A1 Klang, Eyal
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/01/2024.10.30.24316434.abstract
AB Background and Aim This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of multimodal large language models (LLMs), GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 3.5, in detecting glaucoma from fundus images. We specifically assess the impact of prompt engineering and the use of reference images on model performance.Methods We utilized the ACRIMA public dataset, comprising 705 labeled fundus images, and designed four prompt types, ranging from simple instructions to more refined prompts with reference images. The two model were tested across 5640 API runs, with accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV assessed through non-parametric statistical tests.Results Claude Sonnet 3.5 achieved a highest sensitivity of 94.92%, a specificity of 73.46%, and F1 score of 0.726. GPT-4o reached a highest sensitivity of 81.47%, a specificity of 50.49%, and F1 score of 0.645. The incorporation of prompt engineering and reference images improved GPT-4o’s accuracy by 39.8% and Claude Sonnet 3.5’s by 64.2%, significantly enhancing both models’ performance.Conclusion Multimodal LLMs demonstrated potential in diagnosing glaucoma, with Claude Sonnet 3.5 achieving a sensitivity of 94.92%, far exceeding the 22% sensitivity reported for primary care physicians in the literature. Prompt engineering, especially with reference images, significantly improved diagnostic performance. As LLMs become more integrated into medical practice, efficient prompt design may be key, and training doctors to use these tools effectively could enhance clinical outcomes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors