ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Putting ChatGPT vision (GPT-4V) to the test: risk perception in traffic images.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urban walkability through different lenses: A comparative study of GPT-4o and human perceptions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Putting ChatGPT vision (GPT-4V) to the test: risk perception in traffic images.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4's Diagnostic Accuracy: Impact of Visual Data Integration.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vision-language models are of interest in various domains, including automated driving, where computer vision techniques can accurately detect road users, but where the vehicle sometimes fails to understand context. This study examined the effectiveness of GPT-4V in predicting the level of 'risk' in traffic images as assessed by humans. We used 210 static images taken from a moving vehicle, each previously rated by approximately 650 people. Based on psychometric construct theory and using insights from the self-consistency prompting method, we formulated three hypotheses: (i) repeating the prompt under effectively identical conditions increases validity, (ii) varying the prompt text and extracting a total score increases validity compared to using a single prompt, and (iii) in a multiple regression analysis, the incorporation of object detection features, alongside the GPT-4V-based risk rating, significantly contributes to improving the model's validity. Validity was quantified by the correlation coefficient with human risk scores, across the 210 images. The results confirmed the three hypotheses. The eventual validity coefficient was
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.