Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39528887›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025

ChatGPT vs Gemini: Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency in CAD-RADS Score Assignment from Radiology Reports.

Matthew Silbergleit, Adrienn Tóth, Jordan H Chamberlin, Mohamed Hamouda, Dhiraj Baruah, Sydney Derrick, U Joseph Schoepf, Jeremy R Burt, Ismail M Kabakus

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors.

Matthew SilbergleitDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Adrienn TóthDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Jordan H ChamberlinDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Mohamed HamoudaDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Dhiraj BaruahDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Sydney DerrickDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
U Joseph SchoepfDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Jeremy R BurtDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Ismail M KabakusDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Clinical Science Building, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. kabakus@musc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8745-339X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini, and Google Gemini Advanced in generating CAD-RADS scores based on radiology reports. This retrospective study analyzed 100 consecutive coronary computed tomography angiography reports performed between March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, at a single tertiary center. Each report containing a radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS score was processed using four large language models (LLMs) without fine-tuning. The findings section of each report was input into the LLMs, and the models were tasked with generating CAD-RADS scores. The accuracy of LLM-generated scores was compared to the radiologist's score. Additionally, the time taken by each model to complete the task was recorded. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test and interobserver agreement using unweighted Cohen's Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly assigning CAD-RADS scores in 87% of cases (κ = 0.838, α = 0.886), followed by Gemini Advanced with 82.6% accuracy (κ = 0.784, α = 0.897). ChatGPT-3.5, although the fastest (median time = 5 s), was the least accurate (50.5% accuracy, κ = 0.401, α = 0.787). Gemini exhibited a higher failure rate (12%) compared to the other models, with Gemini Advanced slightly improving upon its predecessor. ChatGPT-4o outperformed other LLMs in both accuracy and agreement with radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS scores, though ChatGPT-3.5 was significantly faster. Despite their potential, current publicly available LLMs require further refinement before being deployed for clinical decision-making in CAD-RADS scoring.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesAICAD-RADSChatGPTCoronary CTAGeminiLLM

Identifiers

PMID39528887
PMCPMC12343400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.