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.

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.

Humans Continue to Outperform Large Language Models in Complex Clinical Decision-Making: A Study with Medical Calculators

Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using medical licensing exams, their ability to effectively support clinical decision-making tasks, such as selecting and using medical calculators, remains uncertain. Here, we evaluate the capability of both medical trainees and LLMs to recommend medical calculators in response to various multiple-choice clinical scenarios such as risk stratification, prognosis, and disease diagnosis. We assessed eight LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and measured human performance on a subset of 100 questions. While the highest-performing LLM, GPT-4o, provided an answer accuracy of 74.3% (CI: 71.5-76.9%), human annotators, on average, outperformed LLMs with an accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (56.6%) and calculator knowledge (8.1%), our findings emphasize that humans continue to surpass LLMs on complex clinical tasks such as calculator recommendation.