Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917264›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Evaluating ChatGPT's diagnostic potential for pathology images.

Liya Ding, Lei Fan, Miao Shen, Yawen Wang, Kaiqin Sheng, Zijuan Zou, Huimin An, Zhinong Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [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 · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Liya DingDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Lei FanDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Miao ShenDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Yawen WangCollege of Biomedical Engineering and Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Kaiqin ShengDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Zijuan ZouDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Huimin AnDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Zhinong JiangDepartment of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChatGPTcolon polypdiagnosislarge language modelpathology images

Identifiers

PMID39917264
PMCPMC11798939

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.