ArticleEndocrine2025
Interobserver agreement between artificial intelligence models in the thyroid imaging and reporting data system (TIRADS) assessment of thyroid nodules.
Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs ultrasound (US) is the most accurate tool for assessing the thyroid nodule (TN) risk of malignancy (RoM), international societies have published various Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data Systems (TIRADSs). With the recent advent of artificial intelligence (AI), clinicians and researchers should ask themselves how AI could interpret the terminology of the TIRADSs and whether or not AIs agree in the risk assessment of TNs. The study aim was to analyze the interobserver agreement (IOA) between AIs in assessing the RoM of TNs across various TIRADSs categories using a cases series created combining TIRADSs descriptors.
methodsChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Claude were compared. ACR-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, and K-TIRADS, were employed to evaluate the AI assessment. Multiple written scenarios for the three TIRADS were created, the cases were evaluated by the three AIs, and their assessments were analyzed and compared. The IOA was estimated by comparing the kappa (κ) values.
resultsNinety scenarios were created. With ACR-TIRADS the IOA analysis gave κ = 0.58 between ChatGPT and Gemini, 0.53 between ChatGPT and Claude, and 0.90 between Gemini and Claude. With EU-TIRADS it was observed κ value = 0.73 between ChatGPT and Gemini, 0.62 between ChatGPT and Claude, and 0.72 between Gemini and Claude. With K-TIRADS it was found κ = 0.88 between ChatGPT and Gemini, 0.70 between ChatGPT and Claude, and 0.61 between Gemini and Claude.
conclusionThis study found that there were non-negligible variability between the three AIs. Clinicians and patients should be aware of these new findings.
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.