Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Evaluating Conversational Image Segmentation for Medicine: Performance, Failure Modes, and a Fairness Audit Across Seven Modalities

View ORCID ProfileJustin Do, View ORCID ProfileNidhir Guggilla, View ORCID ProfileVivaswat Suresh, View ORCID ProfileRishi Kothari
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.21.25340008
Justin Do
1Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Justin Do
  • For correspondence: jhd012{at}students.jefferson.edu
Nidhir Guggilla
2University of California, Berkeley, CA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nidhir Guggilla
Vivaswat Suresh
3Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Vivaswat Suresh
Rishi Kothari
4Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rishi Kothari
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction Medical-image segmentation underpins quantitative diagnostics and research, yet state-of-the-art models remain task-specific and data-hungry. The recent emergence of powerful, multimodal large language models (LLMs) presents a generalizable option; however, their efficacy in the specialized medical domain remains largely unquantified. We aim to benchmark the foundational Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite models for zero-shot medical image segmentation and evaluate them for potential bias in performance.

Methods The models were tested on 13,086 medical images spanning seven distinct imaging modalities (endoscopy, fundoscopy, dermoscopy, laparoscopy, ultrasound, radiography, and CT) and 10 clinically relevant segmentation targets (e.g., colorectal polyps, skin lesions, liver tumors). Prompts followed a standard template (“Segment the … in this image.”). Per-image Dice and Intersection-over-Union (IoU) were computed against publicly released expert masks. Bias was assessed on 4,057 dermoscopy images split by Individual-Typology-Angle (ITA) into Light (> 28°, n = 3,499) and Dark (≤ 28°, n = 558) groups.

Results Flash achieved a mean Dice=0.766 (IoU=0.680) for colorectal polyp segmentation, Dice=0.761 (IoU=0.672) for skin lesion segmentation, Dice=0.824 (IoU=0.736) for optic disc segmentation, and Dice=0.718 (IoU=0.616) for surgical tool segmentation, outperforming Flash-Lite by approximately 0.1 Dice points. Accuracy declined on low-contrast radiological tasks (Liver Mass CT Dice=0.071). In the fairness audit, Flash produced a successful mask for 2,839/3,499 light-tone images (81.2%) versus 378/558 dark-tone images (67.7%); χ² = 51.8, p < 0.001. Using all images, mean IoU=0.686 for light tones and IoU=0.591 for dark tones (Kruskal–Wallis H = 62.6, p < 0.001); Cliff’s δ = –0.208 (95% CI – 0.259 to –0.159).

Discussion Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers competitive accuracy on high-contrast photographic datasets at negligible cost. Performance is weaker on radiographic modalities (ultrasound, CT, chest radiography), and in dermoscopy, we observe lower accuracy on darker ITA skin-tone groups. This study informs the field where foundational LLMs are deployment-ready for medical image segmentation and where targeted debiasing or domain adaptation is required.

Competing Interest Statement

Nidhir Guggilla is an employee of OpenAI and holds stock/stock options in the company. Vivaswat Suresh is a prospective employee of CompoundEye. The employers had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Funding Statement

This work was not supported by any sources of funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: Kvasir-Seg: https://github.com/DebeshJha/Kvasir-SEG REFUGE2: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/victorlemosml/refuge2 ISIC 2016, 2017, and 2018 Part 1: https://challenge.isic-archive.com/data/ AutoLaparo: https://autolaparo.github.io/ BUSI: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/sabahesaraki/breast-ultrasound-images-dataset SIIM-ACR: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/jesperdramsch/siim-acr-pneumothorax-segmentation-data LiTS 2017: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/andrewmvd/lits-png

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

https://github.com/DebeshJha/Kvasir-SEG

https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/victorlemosml/refuge2

https://challenge.isic-archive.com/data/

https://autolaparo.github.io/

https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/sabahesaraki/breast-ultrasound-images-dataset

https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/jesperdramsch/siim-acr-pneumothorax-segmentation-data

https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/andrewmvd/lits-png

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 23, 2025.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluating Conversational Image Segmentation for Medicine: Performance, Failure Modes, and a Fairness Audit Across Seven Modalities
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Evaluating Conversational Image Segmentation for Medicine: Performance, Failure Modes, and a Fairness Audit Across Seven Modalities
Justin Do, Nidhir Guggilla, Vivaswat Suresh, Rishi Kothari
medRxiv 2025.11.21.25340008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.21.25340008
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Evaluating Conversational Image Segmentation for Medicine: Performance, Failure Modes, and a Fairness Audit Across Seven Modalities
Justin Do, Nidhir Guggilla, Vivaswat Suresh, Rishi Kothari
medRxiv 2025.11.21.25340008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.21.25340008

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (576)
  • Allergy and Immunology (867)
  • Anesthesia (306)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (4480)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (449)
  • Dermatology (385)
  • Emergency Medicine (614)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1528)
  • Epidemiology (15276)
  • Forensic Medicine (31)
  • Gastroenterology (1133)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6643)
  • Geriatric Medicine (671)
  • Health Economics (1006)
  • Health Informatics (4602)
  • Health Policy (1378)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1622)
  • Hematology (544)
  • HIV/AIDS (1275)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15959)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1110)
  • Medical Education (626)
  • Medical Ethics (147)
  • Nephrology (674)
  • Neurology (6692)
  • Nursing (346)
  • Nutrition (1006)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (1152)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (961)
  • Oncology (3369)
  • Ophthalmology (988)
  • Orthopedics (370)
  • Otolaryngology (421)
  • Pain Medicine (437)
  • Palliative Medicine (131)
  • Pathology (668)
  • Pediatrics (1703)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (699)
  • Primary Care Research (717)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5494)
  • Public and Global Health (9284)
  • Radiology and Imaging (2223)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1375)
  • Respiratory Medicine (1201)
  • Rheumatology (598)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (720)
  • Sports Medicine (535)
  • Surgery (720)
  • Toxicology (100)
  • Transplantation (290)
  • Urology (266)