Assessing GPT-4 multimodal performance in radiological image analysis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Assessing GPT-4 multimodal performance in radiological image analysis.
Authors: Brin, Dana1,2 (AUTHOR) dannabrin@gmail.com, Sorin, Vera1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Barash, Yiftach1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Konen, Eli1,2 (AUTHOR), Glicksberg, Benjamin S.4 (AUTHOR), Nadkarni, Girish N.5,6 (AUTHOR), Klang, Eyal1,2,3,5,6 (AUTHOR)
Source: European Radiology. Apr2025, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p1959-1965. 7p.
Subjects: Generative artificial intelligence, Image analysis, X-ray imaging, Artificial intelligence, Image processing
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09387994
DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11035-5