Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessing GPT-4 multimodal performance in radiological image analysis.
Brin, Dana; Sorin, Vera; Barash, Yiftach; Konen, Eli; Glicksberg, Benjamin S; Nadkarni, Girish N; Klang, Eyal.
Affiliation
  • Brin D; Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. dannabrin@gmail.com.
  • Sorin V; Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel. dannabrin@gmail.com.
  • Barash Y; Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
  • Konen E; Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel.
  • Glicksberg BS; DeepVision Lab, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
  • Nadkarni GN; Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
  • Klang E; Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel.
Eur Radiol ; 2024 Aug 30.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39214893
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

This study aims to assess the performance of a multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) model capable of analyzing both images and textual data (GPT-4V), in interpreting radiological images. It focuses on a range of modalities, anatomical regions, and pathologies to explore the potential of zero-shot generative AI in enhancing diagnostic processes in radiology.

METHODS:

We analyzed 230 anonymized emergency room diagnostic images, consecutively collected over 1 week, using GPT-4V. Modalities included ultrasound (US), computerized tomography (CT), and X-ray images. The interpretations provided by GPT-4V were then compared with those of senior radiologists. This comparison aimed to evaluate the accuracy of GPT-4V in recognizing the imaging modality, anatomical region, and pathology present in the images.

RESULTS:

GPT-4V identified the imaging modality correctly in 100% of cases (221/221), the anatomical region in 87.1% (189/217), and the pathology in 35.2% (76/216). However, the model's performance varied significantly across different modalities, with anatomical region identification accuracy ranging from 60.9% (39/64) in US images to 97% (98/101) and 100% (52/52) in CT and X-ray images (p < 0.001). Similarly, pathology identification ranged from 9.1% (6/66) in US images to 36.4% (36/99) in CT and 66.7% (34/51) in X-ray images (p < 0.001). These variations indicate inconsistencies in GPT-4V's ability to interpret radiological images accurately.

CONCLUSION:

While the integration of AI in radiology, exemplified by multimodal GPT-4, offers promising avenues for diagnostic enhancement, the current capabilities of GPT-4V are not yet reliable for interpreting radiological images. This study underscores the necessity for ongoing development to achieve dependable performance in radiology diagnostics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT Although GPT-4V shows promise in radiological image interpretation, its high diagnostic hallucination rate (> 40%) indicates it cannot be trusted for clinical use as a standalone tool. Improvements are necessary to enhance its reliability and ensure patient safety. KEY POINTS GPT-4V's capability in analyzing images offers new clinical possibilities in radiology. GPT-4V excels in identifying imaging modalities but demonstrates inconsistent anatomy and pathology detection. Ongoing AI advancements are necessary to enhance diagnostic reliability in radiological applications.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Eur Radiol Journal subject: RADIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Israel Country of publication: Germany

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Eur Radiol Journal subject: RADIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Israel Country of publication: Germany