ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Role of GPT-4 and GPT-4o in the Detectability of Chest Radiography Reports Requiring Further Assessment.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Interpretation of Pediatric Electrocardiograms by Large Language Models and a Pediatrician.Indian pediatrics · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the GPT-4o Model in Interpreting Electrocardiogram Images for Cardiac Diagnostics: Diagnostic Accuracy Study.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Article
- Extracting Pulmonary Embolism Diagnoses From Radiology Impressions Using GPT-4o: Large Language Model Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to investigate the capability of generative pre-trained transformer 4 (GPT-4) and GPT-4o in identifying chest radiography reports requiring further assessment. Materials and methods This retrospective study included 100 cases from the National Institutes of Health chest radiography dataset, including 50 abnormal and 50 normal cases. A radiologist blinded to the study's purpose interpreted and reported the radiological findings for each case in English and separately determined the necessity for further assessment based on predefined criteria as referential standards. The radiology reports were then input into GPT-4 and GPT-4o models, accompanied by a prompt to identify cases requiring further assessment. This procedure was repeated five times in separate sessions for each model. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the necessity for further assessment were assessed using McNemar's test. Positive and negative predictive values were assessed using Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test, respectively. Results A total of 100 cases were included (mean age of 49.4 years ± 15.4 [standard deviation]; 56 women). Among them, 44 were judged by the radiologist to require further assessment. Across the five sessions, 19.6% and 35.8% of the cases were judged to require further assessment by GPT-4 and GPT-4o, respectively. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive value of GPT-4o (74.5%, 85.8%, and 82.6%, respectively) were all significantly higher than those of GPT-4 (44.5%, 75.6%, and 69.7%, respectively) (
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.