Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41309648›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of large language models in neuroradiology cases using image inputs from JAMA neurology and JAMA clinical challenges.

Ahmed Albaqshi, Ji Su Ko, Chong Hyun Suh, Pae Sun Suh, Woo Hyun Shim, Hwon Heo, Chang-Yun Woo, Hyungjun Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

8 authors.

Ahmed Albaqshi *Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji Su Ko *Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chong Hyun SuhDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. chonghyunsuh@amc.seoul.kr.
Pae Sun SuhDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Woo Hyun ShimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hwon HeoDepartment of Medical Science, Asan Medical Center, Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chang-Yun WooDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyungjun ParkDepartment of Pulmonology, Shihwa Medical Center, Siheung, Republic of Korea.

Funding

Asan Institute for Life Sciences 2024IP0060-1Korea Health Industry Development Institute HR20C0026NCIRD CDC HHS U01 IP000060
6 · The paper itself

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

LanguageNeuroimagingNeurologyHumansJamaicaLarge Language ModelsArtificial intelligenceComputer-assistedDeep learningImage interpretationNeuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID41309648
PMCPMC12675488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.