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.
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 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing GPT-4 Multimodal Performance in Radiological Image Analysis 97%
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Brain MRI Protocols: Performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B 96%
- Impact of Non-Contrast Enhanced Imaging Input Sequences on the Generation of Virtual Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI Scans using Neural Networks 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- tbiExtractor: A framework for Extracting Traumatic Brain Injury Common Data Elements from Radiology Reports 94%
- Enhancing Semantic Segmentation in Chest X-Ray Images through Image Preprocessing: ps-KDE for Pixel-wise Substitution by Kernel Density Estimation 93%
- Classification performance bias between training and test sets in a limited mammography dataset 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 97%
- Inconsistency of AI in Intracranial Aneurysm Detection with Varying Dose and Image Reconstruction 94%
- Segmentation of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and surrounding vessels in CT images using deep convolutional neural networks and Texture Descriptors 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- “This is a quiz” Premise Input: A Key to Unlocking Higher Diagnostic Accuracy in Large Language Models 97%
- Effects of contrast-medium and vertebral measurement level on computed tomography-based body composition parameters of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue 92%
- Benchmarking Deep Learning-based Image Retrieval of Oral Tumor Histology 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Auto-detection of motion artifacts on CT pulmonary angiograms with a physician-trained AI algorithm 95%
- Demarcation line determination for diagnosis of gastric cancer disease range using unsupervised machine learning in magnifying narrow-band imaging 91%
- A Machine Learning Ensemble Based on Radiomics to Predict BI-RADS Category and Reduce the Biopsy Rate of Ultrasound-Detected Suspicious Breast Masses 90%
"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.