Impact of Multimodal Prompt Elements on Diagnostic Performance of GPT-4(V) in Challenging Brain MRI Cases
Schramm, S.; Preis, S.; Metz, M.-C.; Jung, K.; Schmitz-Koep, B.; Zimmer, C.; Wiestler, B.; Hedderich, D. M.; Kim, S. H.
Show abstract
BackgroundRecent studies have explored the application of multimodal large language models (LLMs) in radiological differential diagnosis. Yet, how different multimodal input combinations affect diagnostic performance is not well understood. PurposeTo evaluate the impact of varying multimodal input elements on the accuracy of GPT-4(V)-based brain MRI differential diagnosis. MethodsThirty brain MRI cases with a challenging yet verified diagnosis were selected. Seven prompt groups with variations of four input elements (image, image annotation, medical history, image description) were defined. For each MRI case and prompt group, three identical queries were performed using an LLM-based search engine ((C) PerplexityAI, powered by GPT-4(V)). Accuracy of LLM-generated differential diagnoses was rated using a binary and a numeric scoring system and analyzed using a chi-square test and a Kruskal-Wallis test. Results were corrected for false discovery rate employing the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Regression analyses were performed to determine the contribution of each individual input element to diagnostic performance. ResultsThe prompt group containing an annotated image, medical history, and image description as input exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy (67.8% correct responses). Significant differences were observed between prompt groups, especially between groups that contained the image description among their inputs, and those that did not. Regression analyses confirmed a large positive effect of the image description on diagnostic accuracy (p << 0.001), as well as a moderate positive effect of the medical history (p < 0.001). The presence of unannotated or annotated images had only minor or insignificant effects on diagnostic accuracy. ConclusionThe textual description of radiological image findings was identified as the strongest contributor to performance of GPT-4(V) in brain MRI differential diagnosis, followed by the medical history. The unannotated or annotated image alone yielded very low diagnostic performance. These findings offer guidance on the effective utilization of multimodal LLMs in clinical practice.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Brain MRI Protocols: Performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B 98%
- Assessing GPT-4 Multimodal Performance in Radiological Image Analysis 94%
- 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 93%
- Classification performance bias between training and test sets in a limited mammography dataset 92%
- Enhancing Semantic Segmentation in Chest X-Ray Images through Image Preprocessing: ps-KDE for Pixel-wise Substitution by Kernel Density Estimation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 94%
- Deep neural networks allow expert-level brain meningioma detection, segmentation and improvement of current clinical practice 93%
- Inconsistency of AI in Intracranial Aneurysm Detection with Varying Dose and Image Reconstruction 93%
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 91%
- Effects of contrast-medium and vertebral measurement level on computed tomography-based body composition parameters of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.