ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
ChatGPT vs Gemini: Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency in CAD-RADS Score Assignment from Radiology Reports.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness, Safety, and Workflow Burden of Large Language Model-Based Medical Report Generation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Large Language Models Versus Human Readers in CAD-RADS 2.0 Categorization of Coronary CT Angiography Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking 54 large language model configurations for CAD-RADS scoring: open-weight models approach human-level agreement.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of large language models for generating CAD-RADS 2.0-compliant diagnostic conclusions in cardiac CT reports.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Insufficient reporting quality in large language model studies in the field of radiology.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Retrieval-augmented generation-enhanced large language models for comprehensive CAD-RADS 2.0 categorization from structured coronary CTA reports.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Generative AI Tools for Interpretation of the WHO TB Mutation Catalogue.BMC digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Large Language Models for CAD-RADS 2.0 Extraction From Semi-Structured Coronary CT Angiography Reports: A Multi-Institutional Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Chatbots in Radiology: Current Applications, Limitations and Future Directions of ChatGPT in Medical Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluation of large language models in generating pulmonary nodule follow-up recommendations.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-4o and Gemini Advanced Performance on Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Exams.Cureus · 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
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
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.