Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026

Reconstruction of 3-Dimensional Histology Volume and its Application to Study Mouse Mammary Glands
Published on: July 26, 2014
Preclinical HistoBench: A Pilot Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models on Preclinical
Avan Kader1, Marie-Luise H H Ranner-Hafferl2, Felix Reuter1
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Abstract:
Background and Purpose: We present a pilot benchmark dataset of 378 preclinical histological samples for evaluating large language model (LLM) performance on multi-dimensional classification tasks. This dataset addresses the lack of standardized benchmarks for assessing LLMs in preclinical histopathology, encompassing species identification (mouse, rabbit, rat), organ recognition, staining methods, and preparation techniques. Methods: We evaluated the LLMs GPT-4.1, GPT-4o-mini, and Llama 3.2 on 378 histological samples across four classification dimensions: species identification (mouse, rabbit, rat), organ recognition (kidney, liver, prostate, spleen), staining method classification (H&E, Elastica van Gieson, collagen, iron, IHC-elastin, MOVAT's pentachrome), and preparation type determination (frozen vs. paraffin-embedded). Performance was assessed using sensitivity and specificity metrics with confusion matrix analysis. Results: Model performance varied substantially across tasks and exhibited strong sensitivity to class imbalance. For preparation type classification, GPT-4.1 achieved the most balanced performance (50% frozen sensitivity, 85.7% paraffin sensitivity), while Llama 3.2 failed to recognize paraffin samples (0% sensitivity). In species classification, Llama 3.2 was the only model capable of identifying all three species (rabbit: 75% sensitivity, rat: 85.7% sensitivity) despite poor mouse recognition (0.3% sensitivity). GPT-4.1 achieved higher mouse sensitivity within this dataset (70.4% sensitivity) but failed with minority species. For staining classification, Llama 3.2 demonstrated highest overall performance, achieving >88% sensitivity for most staining types, while GPT-4o-mini showed perfect H&E recognition (100% sensitivity). Conclusions: Current LLMs demonstrate variable performance for histological classification with substantial sensitivity to class imbalance. While not suitable for standalone diagnostic use, they may serve as useful screening tools in research settings with appropriate human oversight.
More Related Videos
09:06Whole-brain Segmentation and Change-point Analysis of Anatomical Brain MRI—Application in Premanifest Huntington's Disease
Published on: June 9, 2018
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Genetic Lingo
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...