ArticleHepatology communications2025
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 in the histopathological evaluation of liver fibrosis in MASH.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Chronic Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
- ChatGPT in liver transplantation: Current applications, limitations, and future directions.World journal of transplantation · 2026Review
- Responsible use of large language models in gastroenterology and hepatology.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: "Diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 and liver fibrosis in MASH".Hepatology communications · 2025Article
- Reply: Diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 and liver fibrosis in MASH.Hepatology communications · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models like ChatGPT have demonstrated potential in medical image interpretation, but their efficacy in liver histopathological analysis remains largely unexplored. This study aims to assess ChatGPT-4-vision's diagnostic accuracy, compared to liver pathologists' performance, in evaluating liver fibrosis (stage) in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis.
methodsDigitized Sirius Red-stained images for 59 metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis tissue biopsy specimens were evaluated by ChatGPT-4 and 4 pathologists using the NASH-CRN staging system. Fields of view at increasing magnification levels, extracted by a senior pathologist or randomly selected, were shown to ChatGPT-4, asking for fibrosis staging. The diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 was compared with pathologists' evaluations and correlated to the collagen proportionate area for additional insights. All cases were further analyzed by an in-context learning approach, where the model learns from exemplary images provided during prompting.
resultsChatGPT-4's diagnostic accuracy was 81% when using images selected by a pathologist, while it decreased to 54% with randomly cropped fields of view. By employing an in-context learning approach, the accuracy increased to 88% and 77% for selected and random fields of view, respectively. This method enabled the model to fully and correctly identify the tissue structures characteristic of F4 stages, previously misclassified. The study also highlighted a moderate to strong correlation between ChatGPT-4's fibrosis staging and collagen proportionate area.
conclusionsChatGPT-4 showed remarkable results with a diagnostic accuracy overlapping those of expert liver pathologists. The in-context learning analysis, applied here for the first time to assess fibrosis deposition in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis samples, was crucial in accurately identifying the key features of F4 cases, critical for early therapeutic decision-making. These findings suggest the potential for integrating large language models as supportive tools in diagnostic pathology.
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.