Benchmarking Off-the-Shelf Multimodal AI Models Against Dermatologists on Patient-Captured Skin Images

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promise on publicly available dermatology benchmarks. However, benchmark performance may not generalize to real-world dermatologic decision-making. To quantify this benchmark-to-bedside gap, we evaluated four open-weight MLLMs (InternVL-Chat v1.5, LLaVA-Med v1.5, SkinGPT4 and MedGemma-4B-Instruct) and one commercial MLLM (GPT-4.1) across three publicly available dermatology datasets and a retrospective multi-site hospital-based dermatology consultation cohort comprising 5,811 cases and 46,405 clinical images. Models were evaluated on two clinically relevant tasks: differential diagnosis generation and severity-based triage. Diagnostic performance was modest on public datasets and declined substantially in the real-world cohort. On public benchmarks, top-3 diagnostic accuracy reached 26.55% for the best open-weight model and 42.25% for GPT-4.1. On real-world consultation cases using images alone, top-3 diagnostic accuracy fell to 1.50%-13.35% among open-weight models and 24.65% for GPT-4.1. Incorporating clinical context improved performance across all models, increasing top-3 diagnostic accuracy up to 28.75% among open-weight models and 38.93% for GPT-4.1. However, model outputs were highly sensitive to incomplete or erroneous consultation context. For severity-based triage, models achieved moderate sensitivity (above 60%), suggesting potential utility for screening but insufficient reliability for clinical deployment. These findings demonstrate that benchmark performance substantially overestimates the real-world clinical capability of current dermatology MLLMs.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for diagnostic support, but few evaluations use real-world multimodal inpatient data, particularly in low and middle-income country (LMIC) public hospitals. Methods: We conducted VALID, a retrospective evaluation of 539 multimodal inpatient cases from a tertiary public hospital in South Africa. Inputs included radiology imaging (CT, MRI, CXR) and reports, laboratory results, clinical notes, and vital signs. Expert panels adjudicated 300 cases (balanced and discordant subsets) to establish ground truth diagnoses, differentials, and reasoning. Ten multimodal LLMs generated zero-shot outputs. A calibrated three-model LLM Jury scored all outputs and routine ward diagnoses across diagnostic accuracy, differential quality, reasoning, and patient safety (>10,000 evaluations). Primary outcomes were composite scores ($S_3$, $S_4$) and win rates. Results: (i) LLM performance was tightly clustered (<15% variation) despite large cost differences; low-cost models performed comparably to top models. (ii) All LLMs significantly outperformed routine ward diagnoses on average diagnostic and safety scores. (iii) Top performance was achieved by GPT-5.1, followed by Gemini models. (vi) Adding radiology reports improved performance by 6%. (v) Diagnostic and reasoning scores were highly correlated ($ρ= 0.85$). (vi) Output rates varied (65-100%) due to input constraints. Results were robust across subsets and evaluation design. Conclusions: Across a real-world LMIC dataset, multimodal LLMs showed similar diagnostic performance despite large cost differences and outperformed routine care on average safety metrics. Affordability, robustness, and deployment constraints may outweigh marginal performance differences in LMIC settings.

Recent advances in large language models and vision-language models have enabled reasoning over multimodal data, offering opportunities for clinical applications such as decision support and triaging. However, existing medical AI benchmarks are fragmented: some support multi-turn dialogues but lack images, while others provide multimodal inputs but focus on single-turn QA tasks. To address this gap, we introduce IMCBench, an image-grounded, multi-turn medical conversation benchmark that pairs real, publicly available clinical images with synthetic patient profiles to simulate realistic patient-clinician interactions. Each conversation is evaluated across three clinical dimensions: safety, accuracy, and appropriate use of uncertainty in diagnosis. We benchmark eight multimodal frontier models across four model families (Claude, GPT, Nova, and Llama), scoring each on a 1-5 scale using LLM-as-Jury scoring calibrated against expert clinician annotations. Our results show that Claude Opus 4.6 achieves the highest overall score (3.61), followed by Claude Sonnet 4.6 (3.30) and GPT-5.2 (3.29), though no model dominates all dimensions and safety degrades for both malignant and rare conditions ($Δ$ = -0.27 each). Ablation studies further reveal that both visual input and EHR context contribute to safe guidance (safety drops of 0.18 and 0.23 on average when each is removed), with stronger models leveraging visual features more effectively. Together, these findings demonstrate that accurate clinical description does not guarantee safe patient guidance, motivating the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks in medical AI.