Back

Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT's Diagnostic Performance with Radiologists Using Real-World Radiology Reports of Brain Tumors

Mitsuyama, Y.; Tatekawa, H.; Takita, H.; Sasaki, F.; Tashiro, A.; Satoshi, O.; Walston, S. L.; Miki, Y.; Ueda, D.

2023-10-28 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2023.10.27.23297585
Show abstract

BackgroundLarge Language Models like Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) have demonstrated potential for differential diagnosis in radiology. Previous studies investigating this potential primarily utilized quizzes from academic journals, which may not accurately represent real-world clinical scenarios. PurposeThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic capabilities of ChatGPT using actual clinical radiology reports of brain tumors and compare its performance with that of neuroradiologists and general radiologists. MethodsWe consecutively collected brain MRI reports from preoperative brain tumor patients at Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital, taken from January to December 2021. ChatGPT and five radiologists were presented with the same findings from the reports and asked to suggest differential and final diagnoses. The pathological diagnosis of the excised tumor served as the ground truth. Chi-square tests and Fishers exact test were used for statistical analysis. ResultsIn a study analyzing 99 radiological reports, ChatGPT achieved a final diagnostic accuracy of 75% (95% CI: 66, 83%), while radiologists accuracy ranged from 64% to 82%. ChatGPTs final diagnostic accuracy using reports from neuroradiologists was higher at 82% (95% CI: 71, 89%), compared to 52% (95% CI: 33, 71%) using those from general radiologists with a p-value of 0.012. In the realm of differential diagnoses, ChatGPTs accuracy was 95% (95% CI: 91, 99%), while radiologists fell between 74% and 88%. Notably, for these differential diagnoses, ChatGPTs accuracy remained consistent whether reports were from neuroradiologists (96%, 95% CI: 89, 99%) or general radiologists (91%, 95% CI: 73, 98%) with a p-value of 0.33. ConclusionChatGPT exhibited good diagnostic capability, comparable to neuroradiologists in differentiating brain tumors from MRI reports. ChatGPT can be a second opinion for neuroradiologists on final diagnoses and a guidance tool for general radiologists and residents, especially for understanding diagnostic cues and handling challenging cases. SummaryThis study evaluated ChatGPTs diagnostic capabilities using real-world clinical MRI reports from brain tumor cases, revealing that its accuracy in interpreting brain tumors from MRI findings is competitive with radiologists. Key resultsO_LIChatGPT demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy rate of 75% for final diagnoses based on preoperative MRI findings from 99 brain tumor cases, competing favorably with five radiologists whose accuracies ranged between 64% and 82%. For differential diagnoses, ChatGPT achieved a remarkable 95% accuracy, outperforming several of the radiologists. C_LIO_LIRadiology reports from neuroradiologists and general radiologists showed varying accuracy when input into ChatGPT. Reports from neuroradiologists resulted in higher diagnostic accuracy for final diagnoses, while there was no difference in accuracy for differential diagnoses between neuroradiologists and general radiologists. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
21.5%
2
Neuro-Oncology Advances
based on 14 papers
Top 0.2%
12.2%
3
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 12%
11.1%
4
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 68%
5.1%
5
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 1%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Data
based on 30 papers
Top 0.8%
2.5%
7
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
2.0%
8
Brain and Behavior
based on 19 papers
Top 1%
2.0%
9
NeuroImage: Clinical
based on 77 papers
Top 5%
1.7%
10
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
based on 10 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
11
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 11%
1.4%
13
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
based on 12 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
14
Frontiers in Neurology
based on 74 papers
Top 8%
1.4%
15
Annals of Translational Medicine
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 4%
1.4%
17
Frontiers in Oncology
based on 34 papers
Top 5%
1.3%
18
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 5%
1.3%
19
Radiotherapy and Oncology
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
20
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 12%
0.9%
21
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 14%
0.9%
22
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 11%
0.9%
23
Medicine
based on 29 papers
Top 7%
0.9%
24
NeuroImage
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
25
BMC Cancer
based on 21 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Journal of Neurotrauma
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.7%