ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Could a New Method of Acromiohumeral Distance Measurement Emerge? Artificial Intelligence vs. Physician.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of ChatGPT-4 measurement of acromiohumeral distance (AHD), a popular assessment in patients with shoulder pain. In this retrospective study, 71 registered shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were included. AHD measurements were performed on a coronal oblique T1 sequence with a clear view of the acromion and humerus. Measurements were performed by an experienced radiologist twice at 3-day intervals and by ChatGPT-4 twice at 3-day intervals in different sessions. The first, second, and mean values of AHD measured by the physician were 7.6 ± 1.7, 7.5 ± 1.6, and 7.6 ± 1.7, respectively. The first, second, and mean values measured by ChatGPT-4 were 6.7 ± 0.8, 7.3 ± 1.1, and 7.1 ± 0.8, respectively. There was a significant difference between the physician and ChatGPT-4 between the first and mean measurements (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.009, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the second measurements (p = 0.220). Intrarater reliability for the physician was excellent (ICC = 0.99); intrarater reliability for ChatGPT-4 was poor (ICC = 0.41). Interrater reliability was poor (ICC = 0.45). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the reliability of ChatGPT-4 in AHD measurements is inferior to that of an experienced radiologist. This study may help improve the possible future contribution of large language models to medical science.
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.