ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o in Breast Cancer Screening: Insights from the 5th Edition BI-RADS Atlas and ACR Guidelines.
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. 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.
- Reporting Quality of Large Language Model Studies: A Cross-Sectional Audit of High-Ranking Radiology and Medical Imaging Journals.Korean journal of radiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential, reliability, and limitations of ChatGPT-4o in text-based questions and its effectiveness in clinical decision support processes based on the 5th edition of the BI-RADS Atlas and ACR breast cancer screening guidelines. In this study, a total of 100 questions-50 multiple-choice and 50 true/false-prepared by two radiologists were submitted to ChatGPT-4o between November 5 and 19. The answers provided by ChatGPT-4o were evaluated at baseline and 14 days later by both radiologists for accuracy and comprehensiveness using a Likert scale. Group comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon tests; response consistency was evaluated with Cohen's Kappa, and overall accuracy differences with a two-proportion z-test. The increase in overall accuracy from 86 to 95% was statistically significant according to the two-proportion z-test (p = .030). Comparisons between the two sessions revealed statistically significant increases in the accuracy (p = .013, r = .35, 95% CI [0.09, 0.61]) and comprehensiveness (p = .014, r = .35, 95% CI [0.09, 0.61]) rates of true/false questions. On the other hand, no significant difference was found between the accuracy (p = .180, r = .19, 95% CI [- 0.09, 0.47]) and comprehensiveness (p = .180, r = .19, 95% CI [- 0.09, 0.47]) rates of multiple-choice questions. In addition, group comparisons evaluating the effect of different question formats on performance revealed no significant difference in terms of accuracy (p = .661, r = - 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.23, 0.16]) and comprehensiveness (p = .708, r = - 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.23, 0.16]). The consistency of ChatGPT-4o responses was supported by Cohen's Kappa coefficients, all statistically significant (p < .001), with 95% confidence intervals ranging from - .038 to 1.084. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated remarkable performance in answering multiple-choice and true-false questions with overall accuracy improving from 86% in the first test to 95% after 14 days. ChatGPT-4o holds significant potential as a clinical decision support tool for healthcare professionals.
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.