Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Medical Diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence into healthcare has advanced rapidly in recent years, with multimodal approaches emerging as promising tools for improving diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision making. These approaches combine heterogeneous data sources such as medical images, electronic health records, physiological signals, and clinical notes to better capture the complexity of disease processes. Despite this progress, only a limited number of studies offer a unified view of multimodal AI applications in medicine. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of machine learning and deep learning-based multimodal architectures, fusion strategies, and their performance across a range of diagnostic tasks. We begin by summarizing publicly available datasets and examining the preprocessing pipelines required for harmonizing heterogeneous medical data. We then categorize key fusion strategies used to integrate information from multiple modalities and overview representative model architectures, from hybrid designs and transformer-based vision-language models to optimization-driven and EHR-centric frameworks. Finally, we highlight the challenges present in existing works. Our analysis shows that multimodal approaches tend to outperform unimodal systems in diagnostic performance, robustness, and generalization. This review provides a unified view of the field and opens up future research directions aimed at building clinically usable, interpretable, and scalable multimodal diagnostic systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".