Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39221691›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2025

A retrospective evaluation of the potential of ChatGPT in the accurate diagnosis of acute stroke.

Beyza Nur Kuzan, İsmail Meşe, Servan Yaşar, Taha Yusuf Kuzan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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
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

4 authors.

Beyza Nur KuzanKartal Dr. Lütfi Kırdar City Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-5001-3649
İsmail MeşeÜsküdar State Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-4429-6996
Servan YaşarSancaktepe Şehit Prof. Dr. İlhan Varank Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-9404-3217
Taha Yusuf KuzanSancaktepe Şehit Prof. Dr. İlhan Varank Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-5420-8507

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStroke is a neurological emergency requiring rapid, accurate diagnosis to prevent severe consequences. Early diagnosis is crucial for reducing morbidity and mortality. Artificial intelligence (AI) diagnosis support tools, such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), offer rapid diagnostic advantages. This study assesses ChatGPT's accuracy in interpreting diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for acute stroke diagnosis.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted to identify the presence of stroke using DWI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map images. Patients aged >18 years who exhibited diffusion restriction and had a clinically explainable condition were included in the study. Patients with artifacts that affected image homogeneity, accuracy, and clarity, as well as those who had undergone previous surgery or had a history of stroke, were excluded from the study. ChatGPT was asked four consecutive questions regarding the identification of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence, the demonstration of diffusion restriction on the ADC map after sequence recognition, and the identification of hemispheres and specific lobes. Each question was repeated 10 times to ensure consistency. Senior radiologists subsequently verified the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses, classifying them as either correct or incorrect. We assumed a response to be incorrect if it was partially correct or suggested multiple answers. These responses were systematically recorded. We also recorded non-responses from ChatGPT-4V when it failed to provide an answer to a query. We assessed ChatGPT-4V's performance by calculating the number and percentage of correct responses, incorrect responses, and non-responses across all images and questions, a metric known as "accuracy." ChatGPT-4V was considered successful if it answered ≥80% of the examples correctly.

resultsA total of 530 diffusion MRI, of which 266 were stroke images and 264 were normal, were evaluated in the study. For the initial query identifying MRI sequence type, ChatGPT-4V's accuracy was 88.3% for stroke and 90.1% for normal images. For detecting diffusion restriction, ChatGPT-4V had an accuracy of 79.5% for stroke images, with a 15% false positive rate for normal images. Regarding identifying the brain or cerebellar hemisphere involved, ChatGPT-4V correctly identified the hemisphere in 26.2% of stroke images. For identifying the specific brain lobe or cerebellar area affected, ChatGPT-4V had a 20.4% accuracy for stroke images. The diagnostic sensitivity of ChatGPT-4V in acute stroke was found to be 79.57%, with a specificity of 84.87%, a positive predictive value of 83.86%, a negative predictive value of 80.80%, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 21.86.

conclusionDespite limitations, ChatGPT shows potential as a supportive tool for healthcare professionals in interpreting diffusion examinations in stroke cases, where timely diagnosis is critical. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ChatGPT can play an important role in various aspects of stroke cases, such as risk assessment, early diagnosis, and treatment planning.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedStrokeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityChatGPTdiffusion-weighted imagingIschemic strokemagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID39221691
PMCPMC12057523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.