Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39812885›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025

Can ChatGPT4-vision identify radiologic progression of multiple sclerosis on brain MRI?

Brendan S Kelly, Sophie Duignan, Prateek Mathur, Henry Dillon, Edward H Lee, Kristen W Yeom, Pearse A Keane, Aonghus Lawlor, Ronan P Killeen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Brendan S KellySt Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. brendanskelly@me.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3449-8017
Sophie DuignanInsight Centre for Data Analytics, UCD, Dublin, Ireland.
Prateek MathurInsight Centre for Data Analytics, UCD, Dublin, Ireland.
Henry DillonSt Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Edward H LeeLucille Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kristen W YeomLucille Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, CA, USA.
Pearse A KeaneUniversity College London, London, England.
Aonghus LawlorInsight Centre for Data Analytics, UCD, Dublin, Ireland.
Ronan P KilleenSt Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203930/B/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe large language model ChatGPT can now accept image input with the GPT4-vision (GPT4V) version. We aimed to compare the performance of GPT4V to pretrained U-Net and vision transformer (ViT) models for the identification of the progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsPaired coregistered MR images with and without progression were provided as input to ChatGPT4V in a zero-shot experiment to identify radiologic progression. Its performance was compared to pretrained U-Net and ViT models. Accuracy was the primary evaluation metric and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated by bootstrapping. We included 170 patients with MS (50 males, 120 females), aged 21-74 years (mean 42.3), imaged at a single institution from 2019 to 2021, each with 2-5 MRI studies (496 in total).

resultsOne hundred seventy patients were included, 110 for training, 30 for tuning, and 30 for testing; 100 unseen paired images were randomly selected from the test set for evaluation. Both U-Net and ViT had 94% (95% CI: 89-98%) accuracy while GPT4V had 85% (77-91%). GPT4V gave cautious nonanswers in six cases. GPT4V had precision (specificity), recall (sensitivity), and F1 score of 89% (75-93%), 92% (82-98%), 91 (82-97%) compared to 100% (100-100%), 88 (78-96%), and 0.94 (88-98%) for U-Net and 94% (87-100%), 94 (88-100%), and 94 (89-98%) for ViT.

conclusionThe performance of GPT4V combined with its accessibility suggests has the potential to impact AI radiology research. However, misclassified cases and overly cautious non-answers confirm that it is not yet ready for clinical use. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: GPT4V can identify the radiologic progression of MS in a simplified experimental setting. However, GPT4V is not a medical device, and its widespread availability highlights the need for caution and education for lay users, especially those with limited access to expert healthcare. KEY POINTS: Without fine-tuning or the need for prior coding experience, GPT4V can perform a zero-shot radiologic change detection task with reasonable accuracy. However, in absolute terms, in a simplified "spot the difference" medical imaging task, GPT4V was inferior to state-of-the-art computer vision methods. GPT4V's performance metrics were more similar to the ViT than the U-net. This is an exploratory experimental study and GPT4V is not intended for use as a medical device.

Indexed as

BrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiple SclerosisAdultAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultArtificial intelligenceAutomatic data processingBrainDisease progressionMultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID39812885
PMCPMC11735712

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.