ArticleBMC urology2025
Diagnostic performance of advanced large language models in cystoscopy: evidence from a retrospective study and clinical cases.
Article in BMC urology, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Multimodal Large Language Models for Cystoscopic Image Interpretation and Bladder Lesion Classification: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
- Editorial: Advances in pharmacological treatments for urogenital disorders.Frontiers in urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic capabilities of advanced large language models (LLMs) in interpreting cystoscopy images for the identification of common urological conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 603 cystoscopy images obtained from 101 procedures. Two advanced LLMs, both at the forefront of artificial intelligence technology, were employed to interpret these images. The diagnostic interpretations generated by these LLMs were systematically compared against standard clinical diagnostic assessments. The study's primary outcome measure was the overall diagnostic accuracy of the LLMs. Secondary outcomes focused on evaluating condition-specific accuracies across various urological conditions.
resultsThe combined diagnostic accuracy of both LLMs was 89.2%, with ChatGPT-4 V and Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieving accuracies of 82.8% and 79.8%, respectively. Condition-specific accuracies varied considerably, for specific urological disorders: bladder tumors (ChatGPT-4 V: 92.2%, Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 80.9%), BPH (35.3%, 32.4%), cystitis (94.5%, 98.9%), bladder diverticula (92.3%, 53.8%), and bladder trabeculae (55.8%, 59.6%). As for normal anatomical structures: ureteral orifice (ChatGPT-4 V: 48.8%, Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 61.0%), bladder neck (97.9%, 93.8%), and prostatic urethra (64.3%,57.1%).
conclusionsAdvanced language models demonstrated varying levels of diagnostic accuracy in cystoscopy image interpretation, excelling in cystitis detection while showing lower accuracy for other conditions, notably benign prostatic hyperplasia. These findings suggest promising potential for LLMs as supportive tools in urological diagnosis, particularly for urologists in training or early career stages. This study underscores the need for continued research and development to optimize these AI-driven tools, with the ultimate goal of improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in urological practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.