{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/vision-language-models-versus-machine","title":"Vision Language Models versus Machine Learning Models Performance on Polyp Detection and Classification in Colonoscopy Images","arxiv_id":"2503.21840","date":"2025-03-27","proceeding":null,"authors":["Mohammad Amin Khalafi","Seyed Amir Ahmad Safavi-Naini","Ameneh Salehi","Nariman Naderi","Dorsa Alijanzadeh","Pardis Ketabi Moghadam","Kaveh Kavosi","Negar Golestani","Shabnam Shahrokh","Soltanali Fallah","Jamil S Samaan","Nicholas P. Tatonetti","Nicholas Hoerter","Girish Nadkarni","Hamid Asadzadeh Aghdaei","Ali Soroush"],"abstract":"Introduction: This study provides a comprehensive performance assessment of vision-language models (VLMs) against established convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and classic machine learning models (CMLs) for computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of colonoscopy polyp images. Method: We analyzed 2,258 colonoscopy images with corresponding pathology reports from 428 patients. We preprocessed all images using standardized techniques (resizing, normalization, and augmentation) and implemented a rigorous comparative framework evaluating 11 distinct models: ResNet50, 4 CMLs (random forest, support vector machine, logistic regression, decision tree), two specialized contrastive vision language encoders (CLIP, BiomedCLIP), and three general-purpose VLMs ( GPT-4 Gemini-1.5-Pro, Claude-3-Opus). Our performance assessment focused on two clinical tasks: polyp detection (CADe) and classification (CADx). Result: In polyp detection, ResNet50 achieved the best performance (F1: 91.35%, AUROC: 0.98), followed by BiomedCLIP (F1: 88.68%, AUROC: [AS1] ). GPT-4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to traditional machine learning approaches (F1: 81.02%, AUROC: [AS2] ), outperforming other general-purpose VLMs. For polyp classification, performance rankings remained consistent but with lower overall metrics. ResNet50 maintained the highest efficacy (weighted F1: 74.94%), while GPT-4 demonstrated moderate capability (weighted F1: 41.18%), significantly exceeding other VLMs (Claude-3-Opus weighted F1: 25.54%, Gemini 1.5 Pro weighted F1: 6.17%). Conclusion: CNNs remain superior for both CADx and CADe tasks. However, VLMs like BioMedCLIP and GPT-4 may be useful for polyp detection tasks where training CNNs is not feasible.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21840v1","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.21840v1.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"abstracts"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"vision-language-models-versus-machine","repo_url":"https://github.com/aminkhalafi/cml-vs-llm-on-polyp-detection","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":1,"mentioned_in_github":0,"framework":"tf","reach":null}],"tasks":[],"methods":[{"method_slug":"absolute-position-encodings","method_name":"Absolute Position Encodings"},{"method_slug":"adam","method_name":"Adam"},{"method_slug":"attention","method_name":"Attention"},{"method_slug":"bpe","method_name":"BPE"},{"method_slug":"dense-connections","method_name":"Dense Connections"},{"method_slug":"dropout","method_name":"Dropout"},{"method_slug":"gpt-4","method_name":"GPT-4"},{"method_slug":"label-smoothing","method_name":"Label Smoothing"},{"method_slug":"layer-normalization","method_name":"Layer Normalization"},{"method_slug":"linear-layer","method_name":"Linear Layer"},{"method_slug":"multi-head-attention","method_name":"Multi-Head Attention"},{"method_slug":"position-wise-feed-forward-layer","method_name":"Position-Wise Feed-Forward Layer"},{"method_slug":"residual-connection","method_name":"Residual Connection"},{"method_slug":"softmax","method_name":"Softmax"},{"method_slug":"transformer","method_name":"Transformer"}],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}