ArticleCureus2026
Diagnostic Role of ChatGPT in the Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage on Non-contrast Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Intracranial hemorrhage is a potentially fatal neurological emergency. It requires rapid diagnosis to guide the management plan. Non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) is the primary imaging method for detecting acute intracranial bleeding due to its speed and accessibility. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), including large language models like ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), offer new opportunities to support radiological interpretation. Objective This study evaluated ChatGPT's ability to detect intracranial hemorrhages on NCCT brain images and compared its diagnostic performance with that of radiologists. Methods A retrospective case-control study analyzed 276 computed tomography (CT) brain scans obtained from December 2025 to February 2026. The dataset comprised 138 cases with confirmed intracranial hemorrhage and 138 control cases without hemorrhage. CT images were evaluated using ChatGPT with a structured prompt. Radiologist reports served as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance was measured by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Statistical analyses included chi-squared tests and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Results ChatGPT identified 124 of 138 hemorrhage-positive cases and 117 of 138 hemorrhage-negative cases, resulting in 89.9% sensitivity, 84.8% specificity, and 87.3% diagnostic accuracy. Subtype analysis revealed the highest sensitivity for intraparenchymal hemorrhage (88.2%), followed by subarachnoid (73.8%), epidural (66.7%), and subdural (61.5%) hemorrhages, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between ChatGPT predictions and radiologist diagnoses (χ² = 154.1; p < 0.001). The agreement between ChatGPT and radiologist interpretations was good (κ = 0.75). McNemar's test showed no statistically significant difference between ChatGPT and radiologist diagnoses (p = 0.31). Conclusion ChatGPT exhibited promising sensitivity in detecting intracranial hemorrhage on NCCT brain scans. However, its moderate specificity suggests it should serve as an adjunct to, rather than a substitute for, radiologist interpretation. Additional research involving larger datasets and model optimization is necessary prior to clinical implementation.
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.