ArticleCureus2026
Where Are We Now? Benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) in Computed Tomography (CT)-Based Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage.
Article in Cureus, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid computed tomography (CT) interpretation for intracranial hemorrhage is vital for timely care. Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly advanced in image analysis, with some claiming high accuracy in medical imaging interpretation. Evaluate whether LLMs, like Grok-2, ChatGPT-4o, and Gemini 1.5 Flash, can outperform a human medical student in detecting and classifying intracranial hemorrhages.
methodsNon-contrast, axial CT head scans were sourced from the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 2019 database, in which each slice is annotated by expert neuroradiologists. A random sample of 400 scans was selected, consisting of 200 normal cases and 200 hemorrhage cases, with 40 cases representing each major hemorrhage subtype. Grok-2, ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and a blinded medical student were each given an image and a prompt to determine: (1) whether an intracranial hemorrhage was present, and (2) the specific type of hemorrhage. McNemar's test was used to compare paired classification accuracies, and Cohen's kappa was used to measure inter-rater agreement.
resultsLLM accuracy in detecting hemorrhage ranged from 59.3% to 61.0%, with Grok-2 showing the highest specificity and Gemini 1.5 Flash the highest sensitivity. The medical student outperformed all LLMs in accuracy and specificity. Subarachnoid hemorrhages were the hardest to detect. Agreement was lowest between Grok-2 and the human reviewer (κ = 0.0637).
conclusionCurrent general-purpose LLMs demonstrate moderate but inconsistent ability to detect and classify intracranial hemorrhages, underperforming compared to a human medical student. None of the LLMs matched human specificity or accuracy. Refinement of task-specific systems may be required to enhance clinical applicability in neuroimaging.
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.