Introduction Traditional deep learning models for lung sound analysis require large, labeled datasets; multimodal LLMs may offer a flexible, prompt-based alternative. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a general-purpose multimodal LLM, GPT-4o, for lung sound classification from mel-spectrograms and assess whether a few-shot prompt approach improves performance over zero-shot prompting.

Methods Using the ICBHI 2017 Respiratory Sound Database, 6898 annotated respiratory cycles were converted into mel-spectrograms. GPT-4o was prompted to classify each spectrogram in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. Few-shot prompts included labeled examples, while zero-shot prompts did not. Model outputs were evaluated against ground truth labels using performance metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.

Results Few-shot prompting improved overall accuracy (0.363 vs. 0.320) and yielded modest gains in precision (0.316 vs. 0.283), recall (0.300 vs. 0.287), and F1-score (0.308 vs. 0.285) across labels. McNemar’s test indicated a statistically significant difference in performance between prompting strategies (p < 0.001). Model repeatability analysis demonstrated high agreement (κ = 0.76–0.88; agreement: 89–96%), indicating excellent consistency.

Conclusion GPT-4o demonstrated limited but statistically significant performance gains using few-shot prompting for lung sound classification. While not yet suitable for clinical use, this prompt-based approach offers a promising, scalable strategy for medical audio analysis without task-specific training.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

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

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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

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