Assessing Multimodal Chronic Wound Embeddings with Expert Triplet Agreement

Chronic wound assessment remains a clinically challenging task that requires accurate interpretation of wound morphology, tissue composition, vascular characteristics, and infection risk. Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have introduced the possibility of automated multimodal wound analysis through image understanding combined with clinical reasoning. This study evaluates the performance of several general-purpose and medically specialized open-source and proprietary VLMs for clinical wound assessment using an expanded, curated dataset of 20 clinically diverse wounds spanning vascular, surgical, ischemic, venous, lymphedema, and amputation-related etiologies. Six VLMs were evaluated using a structured twelve-question clinical framework covering wound classification, infection risk, vascular intervention recommendations, debridement urgency, wound therapy selection, and advanced management planning. Across 20 wound cases and 240 clinician-graded wound-analysis decisions, ChatGPT achieved the highest overall performance with 174/240 correct responses (72.50%), followed by Claude with 149/240 (62.08%). Among the open-source and medically specialized models, HuluMed achieved the strongest performance with 96/240 correct responses (40.00%), followed by Gemma 3 (81/240, 33.75%), MedGemma 4B (62/240, 25.83%), and MedGemma 27B (42/240, 17.50%). The findings suggest that frontier general-purpose multimodal systems currently demonstrate substantially stronger wound-analysis performance than medically specialized alternatives, highlighting the continued importance of broad multimodal reasoning capabilities alongside domain-specific medical knowledge. Although current VLMs demonstrate promising potential for clinical decision support, substantial limitations remain in advanced wound-management reasoning, procedural planning, and autonomous clinical reliability.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) demonstrate strong performance in dermatology; however, evaluating diagnostic reasoning for rare conditions remains largely unexplored. Existing benchmarks focus on common diseases and assess only final accuracy, overlooking the clinical reasoning process, which is critical for complex cases. We address this gap by constructing DermCase, a long-context benchmark derived from peer-reviewed case reports. Our dataset contains 26,030 multi-modal image-text pairs and 6,354 clinically challenging cases, each annotated with comprehensive clinical information and step-by-step reasoning chains. To enable reliable evaluation, we establish DermLIP-based similarity metrics that achieve stronger alignment with dermatologists for assessing differential diagnosis quality. Benchmarking 22 leading LVLMs exposes significant deficiencies across diagnosis accuracy, differential diagnosis, and clinical reasoning. Fine-tuning experiments demonstrate that instruction tuning substantially improves performance while Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) yields minimal gains. Systematic error analysis further reveals critical limitations in current models' reasoning capabilities.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have advanced clinical tasks for common conditions, but their performance on rare diseases remains largely untested. In rare-disease scenarios, clinicians often lack prior clinical knowledge, forcing them to rely strictly on case-level evidence for clinical judgments. Existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate common-condition, single-image settings, leaving multimodal and multi-image evidence integration under rare-disease data scarcity systematically unevaluated. We introduce MMRareBench, to our knowledge the first rare-disease benchmark jointly evaluating multimodal and multi-image clinical capability across four workflow-aligned tracks: diagnosis, treatment planning, cross-image evidence alignment, and examination suggestion. The benchmark comprises 1,756 question-answer pairs with 7,958 associated medical images curated from PMC case reports, with Orphanet-anchored ontology alignment, track-specific leakage control, evidence-grounded annotations, and a two-level evaluation protocol. A systematic evaluation of 23 MLLMs reveals fragmented capability profiles and universally low treatment-planning performance, with medical-domain models trailing general-purpose MLLMs substantially on multi-image tracks despite competitive diagnostic scores. These patterns are consistent with a capacity dilution effect: medical fine-tuning can narrow the diagnostic gap but may erode the compositional multi-image capability that rare-disease evidence integration demands.