ArticleArchives of rheumatology2026
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT in Radiographic Staging of Sacroiliitis According to the Modified New York Criteria.
Article in Archives of rheumatology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ChatGPT in grading sacroiliitis on pelvic radiographs according to the modified New York criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 266 individuals with or without radiographic sacroiliac joint involvement according to the modified New York criteria (231 with ankylosing spondylitis and 35 without radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis). Two experts independently graded all radiographs based on the modified New York criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. ChatGPT-5o (OpenAI, 2025) was prompted to classify each radiograph using a standardized English-language instruction. ChatGPT's grading outputs were compared with expert consensus.
resultsA statistically significant association was found between ChatGPT and expert gradings, but agreement remained slight (κ = 0.136). Multi-class performance was limited (overall accuracy = 30%), while binary analysis showed higher apparent accuracy (78%) due to a strong positive bias. Sensitivity was 0.796, specificity was 0.696, positive predictive value was 0.946, and negative predictive value was 0.338. Per-grade area under curve values ranged from 0.52 to 0.75, with the highest for Grade 0.
conclusionChatGPT demonstrated only limited agreement with expert assessments and showed poor ability to distinguish between sacroiliitis stages, performing adequately only for normal joints. These findings suggest that large language models like ChatGPT are unsuitable for direct radiographic interpretation without integration into specialized, vision-based diagnostic frameworks. Cite this article as: Güngör Demir U, Demir AN, Uysal A. Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of ChatGPT in radiographic staging of sacroiliitis according to the modified New York criteria. ArchRheumatol. 2026;41(1):57-63.
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.