A Specialized Large Multimodal Model for Interpreting PET/CT in Head and Neck Cancer
Authors: Haengbok Chung, SunGyu Kim, Joo hyun Lee, Sangjin Bae, Min Jeong Cho, Minseok Suh, Jae Sung Lee
Organizations: Interdisciplinary Program in Artificial Intelligence, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. · Interdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Republic of Korea. · Integrated Major in Innovative Medical Science, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Republic of Korea. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. · Institute of Radiation Medicine, Medical Research Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. · Brightonix Imaging Inc., Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Background: Diagnosing head and neck cancer using PET/CT is clinically challenging and time-consuming due to the anatomical complexity of the region, motivating computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). Generalist Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) remain limited in medical contexts by insufficient domain-specific knowledge, privacy and security concerns, and verbosity, motivating specialized standalone LMMs. Purpose: We evaluated the feasibility of a specialized LMM for automated PET/CT interpretation in head and neck cancer using a large-scale multi-institutional PET/CT dataset, a tailored training curriculum, and autoregressive training. Methods: LLaVA-NeXT was fine-tuned using a two-level curriculum with image-conversation pairs curated by two radiologists from public data. The dataset included clinically important annotations such as primary tumor presence and metastatic lymph node location. Level 1 used 28,000 image-conversation pairs to learn basic information, including modality type and hypermetabolism. Level 2 used 12,975 pairs to learn primary tumor presence and the existence and anatomical location of cervical lymph node metastases. External validation included four institutions with diverse imaging devices. Results: The specialized LMM substantially outperformed ChatGPT and LLaVA-NeXT. In Level-2 external validation, ROUGE-L, ROUGE-S, Cosine Similarity, Precision, Recall, and F1 were 0.8751, 0.8794, 0.8324, 0.8794, 0.8711, and 0.8751, while generalist models consistently scored below 0.1. Primary tumor classification accuracy was 83.14 +/- 1.15% internally and 69.03 +/- 0.81% externally. For lymph node localization, the corresponding scores were 0.6389, 0.6257, 0.5287, 0.5782, 0.6371, and 0.6648. Conclusion: Specialized LMMs show promising results for fast, accurate PET/CT-based diagnostic support and medical education, highlighting their potential for clinical translation.
Figures & tables
Characteristic
Type
Training (c = 28,000)
Internal Validation (c = 2,000)
External Validation (c = 1,800)
P Value
Modality
PET
11,011 (39.3)
799 (40.0)
890 (49.4)
<0.001
PET/CT
9,125 (32.6)
655 (32.8)
540 (30.0)
CT
7,864 (28.1)
546 (27.3)
370 (20.5)
View
Axial
12,799 (45.7)
936 (46.8)
613 (34.0)
<0.001
Sagittal
7,513 (26.8)
527 (26.4)
497 (27.6)
Coronal
7,688 (27.5)
537 (26.8)
690 (38.3)
Table 1: Characteristics of the Datasets for Level 1 Training, Internal Validation, and External Validation.
Characteristic
Type
Training (p = 1,333)
Internal Validation (p = 860)
External Validation (p = 169)
P Value
Age
-
65 (55-74) [11-95]
65 (56-75) [17-95]
63 (57-70) [34-90]
0.241
Gender
Male
543 (40.7)
340 (39.5)
124 (73.3)
<0.001
Female
408 (30.6)
240 (27.9)
45 (26.6)
Unknown
382 (28.7)
280 (32.6)
0 (0)
Anatomic Site
Partial Body
87 (6.5)
76 (8.8)
137 (81.0)
<0.001
Whole Body
1229 (92.2)
774 (90.0)
32 (18.9)
Table 2: Patient Characteristics of the Level 1 Training, Internal Validation, and External Validation Cohorts.
Characteristic
Type
Training (c = 12,975)
Internal Validation (c = 1,441)
External Validation (c = 1,000)
P Value
Modality
PET
6,515 (50.1)
713 (49.4)
495 (55.8)
<0.001
PET/CT
4,768 (36.7)
538 (37.3)
378 (42.6)
CT
1,692 (13.0)
190 (13.1)
13 (1.4)
View
Axial
2,556 (19.6)
306 (21.2)
257 (25.7)
<0.001
Sagittal
5,268 (40.5)
572 (39.6)
310 (31.0)
Coronal
5,151 (39.7)
563 (39.0)
433 (43.3)
Table 3: Characteristics of the Datasets for Level 2 Training, Internal Validation, and External Validation.
Characteristic
Type
Training (p = 55)
Internal Validation (p = 55)
External Validation (p = 138)
P Value
Age
-
62 (56-66) [45-81]
62 (56-66) [45-81]
63 (57-70) [34-90]
0.399
Gender
Male
43 (78.1)
43 (78.1)
101 (73.1)
0.662
Female
12 (21.8)
12 (21.8)
37 (26.8)
Anatomic Site
Partial Body
55 (100)
55 (100)
111 (80.4)
<0.001
Whole Body
0 (0)
0 (0)
27 (19.5)
Table 4: Patient Characteristics of the Level 2 Training, Internal Validation, and External Validation Cohorts.
Institution
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-S
Cosine Similarity
Precision
Recall
F1
Internal
0.6239 (± 0.0301)
0.5644 (± 0.0472)
0.5369 (± 0.0785)
0.6168 (± 0.0664)
0.6647 (± 0.0036)
0.6323 (± 0.0324)
External
0.6389 (± 0.0239)
0.6257 (± 0.0143)
0.5287 (± 0.0129)
0.5782 (± 0.0824)
0.6371 (± 0.0650)
0.6648 (± 0.0136)
Table 5: When analyzing the specific task of identifying metastatic lymph node stations—information encoded in the final five tokens of the model's output—we observed quantitatively lower scores on both validation sets compared to the holistic performance metrics. Despite this decrease, the model's ability to detect and localize lymph nodes was high enough to establish its potential clinical utility. These results demonstrate that the model can reliably extract diagnostically relevant information, confirming its feasibility for clinical support.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Modality
Hypermetabolism
Contrast Agent
View
Overall
ROUGE-L
LLaVA-NeXT
0.046 ± (0.0427)
0.1433 ± (0.1602)
0.0688 ± (0.0601)
0.0385 ± (0.0666)
0.0741 ± (0.0913)
GPT-4o
0.3714 ± (0.0027)
0.0999 ± (0.0025)
0.2228 ± (0.0011)
0.4597 ± (0.0018)
0.3044 ± (0.1319)
Ours
0.8088 ± (0.0)
0.8237 ± (0.0)
0.8824 ± (0.0)
0.7726 ± (0.0)
0.7961 ± (0.0757)
ROUGE-S
LLaVA-NeXT
0.0395 ± (0.0374)
0.1678 ± (0.0682)
0.0547 ± (0.0478)
0.0289 ± (0.05)
0.0727 ± (0.0731)
Appendix
Table 6: The performance of internal validation of level 1 tasks.
Model
Modality
Hypermetabolism
View
Overall
ROUGE-L
LLaVA-NeXT
0.0468 ± (0.0046)
0.084 ± (0.0153)
0.0846 ± (0.0097)
0.0718 ± (0.0209)
GPT-4o
0.3769 ± (0.0034)
0.0901 ± (0.003)
0.4797 ± (0.005)
0.3285 ± (0.1510)
Ours
0.8117 ± (0.0)
0.7211 ± (0.0)
0.7692 ± (0.0)
0.7673 ± (0.0393)
ROUGE-S
LLaVA-NeXT
0.0403 ± (0.0046)
0.1289 ± (0.0456)
0.0635 ± (0.0071)
0.0776 ± (0.0460)
Appendix
Table 7: The performance of external validation of level 1.
Model
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-S
Cosine Similarity
Precision
Recall
F1
Internal Validation
LLaVA-NeXT
0.0026 ± (0.0000)
0.0025 ± (0.0000)
0.0014 ± (0.0000)
0.0025 ± (0.0000)
0.0028 ± (0.0000)
0.0026 ± (0.0000)
GPT-4o
0.0503 ± (0.0009)
0.0373 ± (0.0007)
0.0243 ± (0.0006)
0.0379 ± (0.0008)
0.0810 ± (0.0022)
0.0512 ± (0.0012)
Ours
0.8856 ± (0.0000)
0.8912 ± (0.0000)
0.8413 ± (0.0000)
0.8912 ± (0.0000)
0.8804 ± (0.0000)
0.8856 ± (0.0000)
External Validation
LLaVA-NeXT
0.0093 ± (0.0001)
0.0096 ± (0.0001)
0.0069 ± (0.0001)
0.0108 ± (0.0001)
0.0103 ± (0.0001)
0.0103 ± (0.0001)
Appendix
Table 8: Internal and external validation of level 2.
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI), Abu Dhabi, UAE. · Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. +22
Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA · Department of Radiology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand · Department of Radiology, Mettapracharak Hospital, Thailand +1