ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-4 support for differential diagnosis in neuroradiology.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimation of histopathological types from breast MRI findings using a large language model.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Independent and collaborative performance of large language models and healthcare professionals in diagnosis and triage.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of large language models in generating differential diagnosis from clinical presentation and imaging findings in pediatric cases.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Medical Diagnostics: Scoping Review With Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of GPT-based differential diagnostic accuracy in radiological cases: 2023-2025.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differential diagnosis in radiology relies on the accurate identification of imaging patterns. The use of large language models (LLMs) in radiology holds promise, with many potential applications that may enhance the efficiency of radiologists' workflow. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-4, a LLM, in providing differential diagnoses in neuroradiology, comparing its performance with board-certified neuroradiologists. Methods: Sixty neuroradiology reports with variable diagnoses were inserted into GPT-4, which was tasked with generating a top-3 differential diagnosis for each case. The results were compared to the true diagnoses and to the differential diagnoses provided by three blinded neuroradiologists. Diagnostic accuracy and agreement between readers were assessed. Results: Of the 60 patients (mean age 47.8 years, 65% female), GPT-4 correctly included the diagnoses in its differentials in 61.7% (37/60) of cases, while the neuroradiologists' accuracy ranged from 63.3% (38/60) to 73.3% (44/60). Agreement between GPT-4 and the neuroradiologists, and among the neuroradiologists was fair to moderate [Cohen's kappa (kw) 0.34-0.44 and kw 0.39-0.54, respectively]. Conclusions: GPT-4 shows potential as a support tool for differential diagnosis in neuroradiology, though it was outperformed by human experts. Radiologists should remain mindful to the limitations of LLMs, while harboring their potential to enhance educational and clinical work.
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.