ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of ChatGPT performance in orbital MRI reporting with multimetric evaluation of transformer based language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
Transformer-based large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT-4, are increasingly used to streamline clinical practice, of which radiology reporting is a prominent aspect. However, their performance in interpreting complex anatomical regions from MRI data remains largely unexplored. This study investigates the capability of ChatGPT-4 to produce clinically reliable reports based on orbital MR images, applying a multimetric, quantitative evaluation framework in 25 patients with orbital lesions. Due to inherent limitations of current version of GPT-4, the model was not fed with MR volumetric data, but key 2D images only. For each case, ChatGPT-4 generated a free-text report, which was then compared to the corresponding ground-truth report authored by a board-certified radiologist. Evaluation included established NLP metrics (BLEU-4, ROUGE-L, BERTScore), clinical content recognition scores (RadGraph F1, CheXbert), and expert human judgment. Among the automated metrics, BERTScore demonstrated the highest language similarity, while RadGraph F1 best captured clinical entity recognition. Clinician assessment revealed moderate agreement with the LLM outputs, with performance decreasing in complex or infiltrative cases. The study highlights both the promise and current limitations of LLMs in radiology, particularly regarding their inability to process volumetric data and maintain spatial consistency. These findings suggest that while LLMs may assist in structured reporting, effective integration into diagnostic imaging workflows will require coupling with advanced vision models capable of full 3D interpretation.
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.