Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41122619›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Large Language Models Perform at Chance Level in the Diagnosis of Pediatric Pneumonia Using Chest Radiographs.

Justin Gillette, Michelle Lu, Thomas F Heston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Justin GilletteMedical Education and Clinical Sciences, Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane, USA.
Michelle LuInternal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, USA.
Thomas F HestonMedical Education and Clinical Sciences, Washington State University, Spokane, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Pneumonia remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in children globally. Chest radiographs (CXRs) are widely used to diagnose pediatric pneumonia; however, distinguishing between bacterial and viral etiologies on imaging is a diagnostically challenging task. Large language models (LLMs), particularly those integrated with vision capabilities, have shown promise in preliminary studies for interpreting CXR findings. However, the diagnostic performance of general-purpose LLMs without specialized medical training or add-ons remains poorly understood. This study examined whether such LLMs could independently and reliably distinguish between bacterial, viral, and normal CXRs in pediatric patients. Methods We evaluated four publicly available LLMs, such as ChatGPT o3, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Grok 3, on a dataset of 44 pediatric CXRs confirmed by human readers to show bacterial pneumonia (n = 17), viral pneumonia (n = 13), or no abnormality (n = 14). Each image was analyzed twice by each LLM using a standardized prompt, resulting in a total of eight readings per image. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed relative to human expert consensus. Internal consistency was measured by comparing repeated interpretations. A prespecified adaptive stopping rule was employed based on performance futility criteria. Sample size calculations and statistical analyses were conducted using G*Power. Results Across all models and CXR types, the average diagnostic accuracy was 31%, consistent with chance-level performance in a three-choice classification task. Accuracy was highest for viral pneumonia (54%) and lowest for normal CXRs (18%). Internal consistency ranged from 46% to 71% across models, indicating unreliable performance. Concordance with human expert interpretation did not exceed 49% for any of the models. Futility criteria were met after 44 cases, prompting early termination of data collection. Conclusion General-purpose LLMs currently available to the public are not reliable diagnostic tools for pediatric pneumonia on chest radiographs. Their accuracy is low, particularly in ruling out disease, and their responses lack internal consistency. These findings highlight the risks associated with deploying such models in unsupervised clinical or consumer-facing settings. Future research should focus on purpose-built radiologic AI tools trained on diverse, clinically representative datasets and integrated with clinician oversight to ensure the safe and effective use of these tools.

Indexed as

ai in medical imagingchatgptchest-radiographydiagnostic accuracy of ailarge language modelspediatric pneumonia

Identifiers

PMID41122619
PMCPMC12536854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.