Radiology's Last Exam (RadLE): Benchmarking Frontier Multimodal AI Against Human Experts and a Taxonomy of Visual Reasoning Errors in Radiology
On the map: LLM reasoning → Clinical and biomedical applications
Abstract (arXiv)
Generalist multimodal AI systems such as large language models (LLMs) and vision language models (VLMs) are increasingly accessed by clinicians and patients alike for medical image interpretation through widely available consumer-facing chatbots. Most evaluations claiming expert level performance are on public datasets containing common pathologies. Rigorous evaluation of frontier models on difficult diagnostic cases remains limited. We developed a pilot benchmark of 50 expert-level "spot diagnosis" cases across multiple imaging modalities to evaluate the performance of frontier AI models against board-certified radiologists and radiology trainees. To mirror real-world usage, the reasoning modes of five popular frontier AI models were tested through their native web interfaces, viz. OpenAI o3, OpenAI GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok-4, and Claude Opus 4.1. Accuracy was scored by blinded experts, and reproducibility was assessed across three independent runs. GPT-5 was additionally evaluated across various reasoning modes. Reasoning quality errors were assessed and a taxonomy of visual reasoning errors was defined. Board-certified radiologists achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (83%), outperforming trainees (45%) and all AI models (best performance shown by GPT-5: 30%). Reliability was substantial for GPT-5 and o3, moderate for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok-4, and poor for Claude Opus 4.1. These findings demonstrate that advanced frontier models fall far short of radiologists in challenging diagnostic cases. Our benchmark highlights the present limitations of generalist AI in medical imaging and cautions against unsupervised clinical use. We also provide a qualitative analysis of reasoning traces and propose a practical taxonomy of visual reasoning errors by AI models for better understanding their failure modes, informing evaluation standards and guiding more robust model development.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Clinical and biomedical applications, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 5 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2025.
Builds on
5 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 4
- 2023Towards Generalist Biomedical AIcited by 289
- 2023Exploring the Boundaries of GPT-4 in Radiologycited by 31
- 2025Multimodal Large Language Models for Medicine: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 16
- 2024People over trust AI-generated medical responses and view them to be as valid as doctors, despite low accuracycited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Multimodal Healthcare AI: Identifying and Designing Clinically Relevant Vision-Language Applications for Radiology
- 2026RadDiff: Describing Differences in Radiology Image Sets with Natural Language
- 2026SPARC-Rad: A Multimodal Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Pipeline for Spatial and Anatomical Reasoning in Radiology Vision-Language Models
- 2024Expert-level vision-language foundation model for real-world radiology and comprehensive evaluation
- 2026RadSight: Towards Perceptually Reliable Multimodal Radiology Image Understanding
- 2026Evaluating GPT-5 as a Multimodal Clinical Reasoner: A Landscape Commentary
- 2025Multimodal Human-AI Synergy for Medical Imaging Quality Control: A Hybrid Intelligence Framework with Adaptive Dataset Curation and Closed-Loop Evaluation
- 2025Benchmarking GPT-5 for Zero-Shot Multimodal Medical Reasoning in Radiology and Radiation Oncology