ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Evaluating ChatGPT's diagnostic potential for pathology images.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Care and Clinical Decision Support: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Applications of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology: A State-of-the-Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Adaptive diagnostic reasoning framework for pathology with multimodal large language models.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- A Comparative Assessment of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek Accuracy: Examining Visual Medical Assessment in Internal Medicine Cases with and Without Clinical Context.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Research progress of large language models in tumor diagnosis: applications in textual reports and medical imaging].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy and repeatability of ChatGPT using textual and radiographic data in reversible pulpitis: a retrospective diagnostic study.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence as an aid in interpreting thyroid FNA cytopathological images: Are we there yet?Cancer cytopathology · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on image-based oral pathology questions from the Japanese National Dental Examination.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- AI-assisted sentinel lymph node examination and metastatic detection in breast cancer: the potential of ChatGPT for digital pathology research.Pathologica · 2025Article
- Article
- Deep learning-based image classification for AI-assisted integration of pathology and radiology in medical imaging.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4.0 and Medical Students: A Recognition-Gated Comparative Evaluation on Image-Based Medical Examinations.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
Background: Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a type of large language model (LLM) developed by OpenAI, known for its extensive knowledge base and interactive capabilities. These attributes make it a valuable tool in the medical field, particularly for tasks such as answering medical questions, drafting clinical notes, and optimizing the generation of radiology reports. However, keeping accuracy in medical contexts is the biggest challenge to employing GPT-4 in a clinical setting. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of GPT-4, which can process both text and image inputs, in generating diagnoses from pathological images. Methods: This study analyzed 44 histopathological images from 16 organs and 100 colorectal biopsy photomicrographs. The initial evaluation was conducted using the standard GPT-4 model in January 2024, with a subsequent re-evaluation performed in July 2024. The diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4 was assessed by comparing its outputs to a reference standard using statistical measures. Additionally, four pathologists independently reviewed the same images to compare their diagnoses with the model's outputs. Both scanned and photographed images were tested to evaluate GPT-4's generalization ability across different image types. Results: GPT-4 achieved an overall accuracy of 0.64 in identifying tumor imaging and tissue origins. For colon polyp classification, accuracy varied from 0.57 to 0.75 in different subtypes. The model achieved 0.88 accuracy in distinguishing low-grade from high-grade dysplasia and 0.75 in distinguishing high-grade dysplasia from adenocarcinoma, with a high sensitivity in detecting adenocarcinoma. Consistency between initial and follow-up evaluations showed slight to moderate agreement, with Kappa values ranging from 0.204 to 0.375. Conclusion: GPT-4 demonstrates the ability to diagnose pathological images, showing improved performance over earlier versions. Its diagnostic accuracy in cancer is comparable to that of pathology residents. These findings suggest that GPT-4 holds promise as a supportive tool in pathology diagnostics, offering the potential to assist pathologists in routine diagnostic workflows.
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.