ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of large language models in neuroradiology cases using image inputs from JAMA neurology and JAMA clinical challenges.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of radiological anatomy knowledge and accuracy of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and Grok 4 across normal and thinking modes.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models in Neuroradiology: Methodological Considerations.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Research: Modality Dependence and Limited Visual-Spatial Integration in Multimodal Large Language Models for Breast Cancer Histopathology.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of the performance of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3, Copilot, Perplexity, and medical students in answering neurology questions: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Clinical Neurology: A Systematic Review.Research square · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of GPT-4 With Vision in Neuroradiology Board-Style Exam Questions: Cross-Sectional Case-Based Study.JMIR neurotechnology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assesses the diagnostic performance of six LLMs -GPT-4v, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Claude 3.0, and Claude 3.5-on complex neurology cases from JAMA Neurology and JAMA, focusing on their image interpretation abilities. We selected 56 radiology cases from JAMA Neurology and JAMA (from May 2015 to April 2024), rephrasing the text and reshuffling multiple-choice answer. Each LLM processed four input types: original quiz with images, rephrased text with images, rephrased text only, and images only. Model performance was compared with three neuroradiologists, and consistency was assessed across five repetitions using Fleiss' kappa. In the image-only condition, LLMs answered six specific questions regarding modality, sequence, contrast, plane, anatomical, and pathologic locations, and their accuracy was evaluated. Claude 3.5 achieved the highest accuracy (80.4%) on original image and text inputs. The accuracy using the rephrased quiz text with image ranged from 62.5% (35/56) to 76.8% (43/56). The accuracy using the rephrased quiz text only ranged from 51.8% (29/56) to 76.8% (43/56). LLMs performed on par with first-year fellows (71.4% [40/56]) but surpassed junior faculty (51.8% [29/56]) and second-year fellows (48.2% [27/56]). All LLMs showed almost similar results across the five repetitions (0.860-1.000). In image-only tasks, LLM accuracy in identifying pathologic locations ranged from 21.5% (28/130) to 63.1% (82/130). LLMs exhibit strong diagnostic performance with clinical text, yet their ability to interpret complex radiologic images independently is limited. Further refinement in image analysis is essential for these models to integrate fully into radiologic workflows.
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.