Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38780839›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2024

Art or Artifact: Evaluating the Accuracy, Appeal, and Educational Value of AI-Generated Imagery in DALL·E 3 for Illustrating Congenital Heart Diseases.

Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Abdullah N Alhuzaimi, Mohammed Almansour, Fadi Aljamaan, Khalid Alhasan, Munirah A Batarfi, Ibraheem Altamimi, Amani Alharbi, Adel Abdulaziz Alsuhaibani, Leena Alwakeel and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Mohamad-Hani TemsahCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. mtemsah@ksu.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4389-9322
Abdullah N AlhuzaimiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed AlmansourCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3925-7183
Fadi AljamaanCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8404-6652
Khalid AlhasanCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4291-8536
Munirah A BatarfiBasic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ibraheem AltamimiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Amani AlharbiPediatric Department, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Adel Abdulaziz AlsuhaibaniPediatric Department, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2113-3430
Leena AlwakeelPediatric Department, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulrahman Abdulkhaliq AlzahraniCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Khaled B AlsulaimCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8682-0872
Amr JamalCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4051-6592
Afnan KhayatHealth Information Management Department, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Al Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0682-496X
Mohammed Hussien AlghamdiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rabih HalwaniDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6516-7771
Muhammad Khurram KhanCenter of Excellence in Information Assurance, King Saud University, 11653, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6636-0533
Ayman Al-EyadhyCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rakan NazerCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4307-1143

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly AI-Generated Imagery, has the potential to impact medical and patient education. This research explores the use of AI-generated imagery, from text-to-images, in medical education, focusing on congenital heart diseases (CHD). Utilizing ChatGPT's DALL·E 3, the research aims to assess the accuracy and educational value of AI-created images for 20 common CHDs. In this study, we utilized DALL·E 3 to generate a comprehensive set of 110 images, comprising ten images depicting the normal human heart and five images for each of the 20 common CHDs. The generated images were evaluated by a diverse group of 33 healthcare professionals. This cohort included cardiology experts, pediatricians, non-pediatric faculty members, trainees (medical students, interns, pediatric residents), and pediatric nurses. Utilizing a structured framework, these professionals assessed each image for anatomical accuracy, the usefulness of in-picture text, its appeal to medical professionals, and the image's potential applicability in medical presentations. Each item was assessed on a Likert scale of three. The assessments produced a total of 3630 images' assessments. Most AI-generated cardiac images were rated poorly as follows: 80.8% of images were rated as anatomically incorrect or fabricated, 85.2% rated to have incorrect text labels, 78.1% rated as not usable for medical education. The nurses and medical interns were found to have a more positive perception about the AI-generated cardiac images compared to the faculty members, pediatricians, and cardiology experts. Complex congenital anomalies were found to be significantly more predicted to anatomical fabrication compared to simple cardiac anomalies. There were significant challenges identified in image generation. Based on our findings, we recommend a vigilant approach towards the use of AI-generated imagery in medical education at present, underscoring the imperative for thorough validation and the importance of collaboration across disciplines. While we advise against its immediate integration until further validations are conducted, the study advocates for future AI-models to be fine-tuned with accurate medical data, enhancing their reliability and educational utility.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansAI-generated imageryAI text-to-image generatorAnatomical accuracyCongenital heart diseasesDALL·E 3 and medical educationHealthcare professional visual perceptionsMedical illustrations and chatGPT integration, medical artificial intelligence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.