ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Diagnostic Performance of a Large Language Model (ChatGPT-4o) in Chronic Rhinosinusitis CT Scan Interpretation.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are increasingly utilized by physicians for clinical decision support due to their ease of use and versatility. However, their performance in diagnostic imaging remains largely untested. This study prospectively evaluates ChatGPT's ability to interpret sinus computed tomography (CT) scans for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), using radiologist assessment as the reference standard. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 102 coronal sinus CT scans were evaluated by both a board-certified radiologist and ChatGPT-4o. Each scan was screen recorded and uploaded twice to ChatGPT to assess repeatability, resulting in 306 total interpretations. The radiologist reviewed the same screen recordings provided to ChatGPT. Both raters assessed 11 predefined binary anatomical features and generated Lund-Mackay scores. Diagnostic performance was assessed using standard accuracy metrics, and inter-rater agreement was evaluated using established reliability coefficients. Results: ChatGPT demonstrated variable performance across anatomical features. Sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.89, and specificity from 0.26 to 0.95. The model demonstrated relatively high sensitivity for mucosal thickening (0.84) and sinus expansion (0.73), as well as strong agreement with the radiologist for the lamina papyracea (AC1 = 0.92) and anterior ethmoid artery (AC1 = 0.77). However, performance was poor for air-fluid levels and bone thinning. Agreement with the radiologist was low across most features (AC1 < 0.4 in 82% of variables), and repeatability between ChatGPT versions was limited (mean AC1 = 0.29). Correlation between runs for Lund-Mackay scores was weak ( Conclusion: ChatGPT demonstrates partial capability in identifying specific sinus CT findings; however, it lacks overall diagnostic consistency. Human radiologists remain essential, and the clinical use of LLMs in imaging should be approached with caution.
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.