Back

Performance of GPT-4 on the American College of Radiology In-Service Examination

Payne, D. L.; Purohit, K.; Borrero, W. M.; Chung, K.; Hao, M.; Mpoy, M.; Jin, M.; Prasanna, P.; Hill, V.

2024-02-20 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.02.15.580546 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesNo study has evaluated the ability of ChatGPT-4 to answer image-rich diagnostic radiology board exam questions or assessed for model drift in GPT-4s image interpretation abilities. In our study we evaluate GPT-4s performance on the American College of Radiology (ACR) 2022 Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination (DXIT). MethodsQuestions were sequentially input into GPT-4 with a standardized prompt. Each answer was recorded and overall accuracy was calculated, as was logic-adjusted accuracy, and accuracy on image-based questions. This experiment was repeated several months later to assess for model drift. ResultsGPT-4 achieved 58.5% overall accuracy, lower than the PGY-3 average (61.9%) but higher than the PGY-2 average (52.8%). Adjusted accuracy was 52.8%. GPT-4 showed significantly higher (p = 0.012) confidence for correct answers (87.1%) compared to incorrect (84.0%). Performance on image-based questions was notably poorer (p < 0.001) at 45.4% compared to text-only questions (80.0%), with adjusted accuracy for image questions of 36.4%. When the questions were repeated, GPT-4 chose a different answer 25.5% of the time and there was a small but insignificant decrease in accuracy. DiscussionGPT-4 performed between PGY-2 and PGY-3 levels on the 2022 DXIT, but significantly poorer on image-based questions, and with large variability in answer choices across time points. This study underscores the potential and risks of using minimally-prompted general AI models in interpreting radiologic images as a diagnostic tool. Implementers of general AI radiology systems should exercise caution given the possibility of spurious yet confident responses.

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"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.