KGLMQA: Enhancing Medical Visual Question Answering with Knowledge Graphs and LLMs


Abstract

Medical Visual Question Answering (MedVQA) integrates computer vision and natural language processing technologies to assist clinical decision-making and reduce diagnostic errors. However, existing MedVQA models often suffer from limitations in multimodal feature interaction, insufficient integration of medical knowledge, and a lack of diagnostic logic in their answers. To address these challenges, we propose KGLMQA, a novel framework that integrates knowledge graphs with Large Language Models (LLMs) to enhance the performance of MedVQA. KGLMQA consists of three modules: a MedVQA classification model that employs a gating mechanism and multi-stage feature fusion, a Knowledge Graph Retrieval Augmented Generation (KGRAG) module for dynamic retrieval and refinement of medical knowledge, and a large language model used to generate professional and semantically aware answers. The experimental results based on the P-VQA, VQA-RAD, and SLAKE datasets show that KGLMQA achieves state-of-the-art performance in terms of Accuracy and Precision, and it particularly excels in handling open-ended questions. The case analysis further demonstrates that, compared with baseline large language models such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek-V3, KGLMQA has significant advantages in diagnostic logic and completeness of answers. The results indicate that integrating visual diagnosis, structured medical knowledge, and large language models can effectively promote the development of MedVQA systems towards real clinical applications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].