ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2024
The performance of ChatGPT-4.0o in medical imaging evaluation: a cross-sectional study
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Multimodal Large Language Models and Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists in the Detection of Incidental Findings on Panoramic Radiographs: A CBCT-Referenced Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Cautious Integration With AI in the Clinic: A Standardized-Patient Pilot Study of ChatGPT's Reliability in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Scoring.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Dental Expertise in Diagnosing Periapical Pathosis on Periapical Radiographs: A Multicenter Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-5 in Diagnosing Fractures on Proximal Humerus and Intertrochanteric Femur X-Rays.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and repeatability of ChatGPT using textual and radiographic data in reversible pulpitis: a retrospective diagnostic study.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Technologies, opportunities, challenges, and future directions for integrating generative artificial intelligence into medical education: a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2025Article
- The performance of ChatGPT on medical image-based assessments and implications for medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluating the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o in the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Burning Mouth Syndrome Diagnosis.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Conversational LLM Chatbot ChatGPT-4 for Colonoscopy Boston Bowel Preparation Scoring: An Artificial Intelligence-to-Head Concordance Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o in developing continuing professional development plans for graduate radiographers: a descriptive studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the performance of ChatGPT-4.0o in evaluating the quality of positioning in radiographic images. Thirty radiographs depicting a variety of knee, elbow, ankle, hand, pelvis, and shoulder projections were produced using anthropomorphic phantoms and uploaded to ChatGPT-4.0o. The model was prompted to provide a solution to identify any positioning errors with justification and offer improvements. A panel of radiographers assessed the solutions for radiographic quality based on established positioning criteria, with a grading scale of 1–5. In only 20% of projections, ChatGPT-4.0o correctly recognized all errors with justifications and offered correct suggestions for improvement. The most commonly occurring score was 3 (9 cases, 30%), wherein the model recognized at least 1 specific error and provided a correct improvement. The mean score was 2.9. Overall, low accuracy was demonstrated, with most projections receiving only partially correct solutions. The findings reinforce the importance of robust radiography education and clinical experience.
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.