Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40977631›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026

Diagnostic accuracy and consistency of ChatGPT-4o in radiology: influence of image, clinical data, and answer options on performance.

Kadir Atakır, Kaan Işın, Abdullah Taş, Hakan Önder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kadir AtakırUniversity of Health Sciences Türkiye, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-3654-9375
Kaan IşınUniversity of Health Sciences Türkiye, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-8193-6756
Abdullah TaşUniversity of Health Sciences Türkiye, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0009-0008-7610-4670
Hakan ÖnderUniversity of Health Sciences Türkiye, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, İstanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-5207-3314

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) version 4 Omni (ChatGPT-4o) in radiology across seven information input combinations (image, clinical data, and multiple-choice options) to assess the consistency of its outputs across repeated trials and to compare its performance with that of human radiologists.

methodsWe tested 129 distinct radiology cases under seven input conditions (varying presence of imaging, clinical context, and answer options). Each case was processed by ChatGPT-4o for seven different input combinations on three separate accounts. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by comparison with ground-truth diagnoses, and interobserver consistency was measured using Fleiss' kappa. Pairwise comparisons were performed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Additionally, the same set of cases was evaluated by nine radiology residents to benchmark ChatGPT-4o's performance against human diagnostic accuracy.

resultsChatGPT-4o's diagnostic accuracy was lowest for "image only" (19.90%) and "options only" (20.67%) conditions. The highest accuracy was observed in "image + clinical information + options" (80.88%) and "clinical information + options" (75.45%) conditions. The highest interobserver agreement was observed in the "image + clinical information + options" condition (κ = 0.733) and the lowest was in the "options only" condition (κ = 0.023), suggesting that more information improves consistency. However, there was no effective benefit of adding imaging data over already provided clinical data and options, as seen in post-hoc analysis. In human comparison, ChatGPT-4o outperformed radiology residents in text-based configurations (75.45% vs. 42.89%), whereas residents showed slightly better performance in image-based tasks (64.13% vs. 61.24%). Notably, when residents were allowed to use ChatGPT-4o as a support tool, their image-based diagnostic accuracy increased from 63.04% to 74.16%.

conclusionChatGPT-4o performs well when provided with rich textual input but remains limited in purely image- based diagnoses. Its accuracy and consistency increase with multimodal input, yet adding imaging does not significantly improve performance beyond clinical context and diagnostic options alone. The model's superior performance to residents in text-based tasks underscores its potential as a diagnostic aid in structured scenarios. Furthermore, its integration as a support tool may enhance human diagnostic accuracy, particularly in image-based interpretation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although ChatGPT-4o is not yet capable of reliably interpreting radiologic images on its own, it demonstrates strong performance in text-based diagnostic reasoning. Its integration into clinical workflows-particularly for triage, structured decision support, or educational purposes-may augment radiologists' diagnostic capacity and consistency.

Indexed as

RadiologyGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceChatGPTclinical decision support systemsdiagnostic accuracylarge language modelsmedical imagingmultimodal inputobserver variation

Identifiers

PMID40977631
PMCPMC13530496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.