ArticleClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2026
Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in Identifying Anatomical Structures on Cadaveric Images: A Practical Anatomy Examination Study.
Article in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 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.
- Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid expansion of large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, has generated interest in their potential role in medical education. Although prior studies have evaluated LLM performance in theoretical assessments and selected imaging tasks, their ability to recognize anatomical structures in a cadaver-based practical examination setting remains unclear. This study assessed the accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in identifying anatomical structures on photographs of cadaveric specimens marked in the same manner as during practical anatomy examinations. A total of 265 anatomical structures were labeled on cadaveric specimens from the Department of Anatomy of the Jagiellonian University Medical College and photographed. Using a standardized prompt, the free version of ChatGPT-4o was asked to identify each marked structure, with up to three attempts permitted and standardized feedback provided after incorrect responses. Identification was considered correct only when a valid anatomical term precisely corresponding to the indicated structure was provided. The overall accuracy was 22.26%. Correct identification occurred on the first attempt in 33 cases, on the second in 15, and on the third in 11. Accuracy was highest for osteological structures (64.71% correct within three attempts) and lowest for isolated thoracic organs (8.82%). The model frequently misidentified anatomical regions and occasionally generated non-existent anatomical terms. At its current stage of development, ChatGPT-4o does not appear to be a reliable tool for cadaver-based anatomical structure recognition or practical anatomy examination support.
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.