ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2025
A retrospective evaluation of the potential of ChatGPT in the accurate diagnosis of acute stroke.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Early Recognition and Referral of Acute Stroke in Primary and Emergency Care: A Systematic Review.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Professionals and Large Language Models: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Prospective quantitative analysis of hyperparameter and input optimization in GPT-5: comparative contribution to radiologist performance in abdominal radiology.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Reporting Quality of Large Language Model Studies: A Cross-Sectional Audit of High-Ranking Radiology and Medical Imaging Journals.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and consistency of ChatGPT-4o in radiology: influence of image, clinical data, and answer options on performance.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Zero-shot performance of a general-purpose vision-language model for pediatric appendicitis diagnosis.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Could a New Method of Acromiohumeral Distance Measurement Emerge? Artificial Intelligence vs. Physician.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in radiology: diagnostic sensitivity of ChatGPT for detecting hemorrhages in cranial computed tomography scans.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Large Language Model-Based System for Medical History-Taking Training: Prospective Multicase Study on Evaluation Stability, Human-AI Consistency, and Transparency.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Current Landscape and Future Directions Regarding Generative Large Language Models in Stroke Care: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Recognizing Brain MRI Sequences: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-4o, Claude 4 Opus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in Interpreting Chest and Abdominal X-Ray Images.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Algorithms' Diagnostic Efficacy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage from Computed Tomography Images: Diagnostic Role and Efficacy of ChatGPT-4o.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A pilot evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 for multiple sclerosis from case reports.Translational neuroscience · 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
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
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.