ArticleDermatology (Basel, Switzerland)2026
When Jack of All Trades Is a Master of None: Comparing the Performance of GPT-4 Omni against Specialised Neural Networks in Identifying Malignant Dermatological Lesions from Smartphone Images and Structured Clinical Data.
Article in Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Fitzpatrick Skin Type Prompting on Diagnostic Accuracy in Multimodal Large Language Models: A Within-Image Experimental Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Role of AI-Generated Clinical Image Descriptions in Enhancing Teledermatology Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially assist in triaging suspicious skin lesions as malignant or benign. General-purpose multimodal large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4o, have not been rigorously evaluated for this task. This study assessed GPT-4o's ability to triage skin lesions and compared its performance to specialised neural networks.
methodsWe evaluated GPT-4o using 1,000 random cases from the PAD-UFES-20 dataset with 50 repeated trials. GPT-4o was tested using clinical data-only, image-only, and multimodal inputs. GPT-4o's performance, consistency, and fairness across different demographic subgroups was evaluated. Its performance metrics were compared against specialised unimodal and multimodal neural networks trained on a separate subset of the PAD-UFES-20 dataset.
resultsGPT-4o exhibited poor triage performance across all modalities, with average balanced accuracies of 0.571, 0.602, and 0.622 for clinical data, image, and multimodal inputs, respectively. Sensitivity was consistently high (>0.95) with the trade-off of very low specificity. Mean agreement rates were high (>0.90); however, Fleiss' κ indicated only moderate consistency due to a strong bias toward malignant classifications. Fairness evaluations showed poorer discriminative performance in younger patients compared to middle-aged and elderly patients but no notable differences between different sex and skin tone subgroups. Specialised neural networks significantly outperformed GPT-4o on most pairwise comparisons. Multimodal inputs significantly improved GPT-4o performance over unimodal inputs.
conclusionAlthough GPT-4o consistently triaged skin lesions with high sensitivity, its very low specificity limits clinical utility. Thus, general-purpose LLMs like GPT-4o are currently unsuitable for clinical dermatological diagnostics without significant field-specific developments and validation. </p>.
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.