Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance from Patient's Medical History and Imaging Findings between GPT-4 based ChatGPT and Radiologists in Challenging Neuroradiology Cases
Horiuchi, D.; Tatekawa, H.; Oura, T.; Oue, S.; Walston, S. L.; Takita, H.; Matsushita, S.; Mitsuyama, Y.; Shimono, T.; Miki, Y.; Ueda, D.
Show abstract
PurposeTo compare the diagnostic performance between Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), based on the GPT-4 architecture, and radiologists from patients medical history and imaging findings in challenging neuroradiology cases. MethodsWe collected 30 consecutive "Freiburg Neuropathology Case Conference" cases from the journal Clinical Neuroradiology between March 2016 and June 2023. GPT-4 based ChatGPT generated diagnoses from the patients provided medical history and imaging findings for each case, and the diagnostic accuracy rate was determined based on the published ground truth. Three radiologists with different levels of experience (2, 4, and 7 years of experience, respectively) independently reviewed all the cases based on the patients provided medical history and imaging findings, and the diagnostic accuracy rates were evaluated. The Chi-square tests were performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy rates between ChatGPT and each radiologist. ResultsChatGPT achieved an accuracy rate of 23% (7/30 cases). Radiologists achieved the following accuracy rates: a junior radiology resident had 27% (8/30) accuracy, a senior radiology resident had 30% (9/30) accuracy, and a board-certified radiologist had 47% (14/30) accuracy. ChatGPTs diagnostic accuracy rate was lower than that of each radiologist, although the difference was not significant (p = 0.99, 0.77, and 0.10, respectively). ConclusionThe diagnostic performance of GPT-4 based ChatGPT did not reach the performance level of either junior/senior radiology residents or board-certified radiologists in challenging neuroradiology cases. While ChatGPT holds great promise in the field of neuroradiology, radiologists should be aware of its current performance and limitations for optimal utilization.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing GPT-4 Multimodal Performance in Radiological Image Analysis 96%
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Brain MRI Protocols: Performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B 95%
- Impact of Non-Contrast Enhanced Imaging Input Sequences on the Generation of Virtual Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI Scans using Neural Networks 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- tbiExtractor: A framework for Extracting Traumatic Brain Injury Common Data Elements from Radiology Reports 92%
- Classification performance bias between training and test sets in a limited mammography dataset 92%
- Weakly supervised learning for multi-organ adenocarcinoma classification in whole slide images 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 96%
- Inconsistency of AI in Intracranial Aneurysm Detection with Varying Dose and Image Reconstruction 93%
- Association of Graph-based Spatial Features with Overall Survival Status of Glioblastoma Patients 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated Tumor Segmentation and Brain Tissue Extraction from Multiparametric MRI of Pediatric Brain Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Study 94%
- Early prognostication of overall survival for pediatric diffuse midline gliomas using MRI radiomics and machine learning 92%
- Evidence of supratentorial white matter injury prior to treatment in children with posterior fossa tumours using diffusion MRI 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- “This is a quiz” Premise Input: A Key to Unlocking Higher Diagnostic Accuracy in Large Language Models 96%
- Benchmarking Deep Learning-based Image Retrieval of Oral Tumor Histology 92%
- Effects of contrast-medium and vertebral measurement level on computed tomography-based body composition parameters of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.