ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Performance evaluation of domain-specific and general-purpose AI models for chest radiograph interpretation: a comparative study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest radiography remains the most widely used imaging modality worldwide; however, its interpretation is inherently challenging because of overlapping anatomical structures and subtle findings. Recent advances in multimodal large language models (LLMs) have enabled automated radiology report generation, yet their clinical performance relative to domain-specific medical AI systems remains insufficiently validated.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the performance and clinical applicability of a domain-specific multimodal AI model (M4CXR) compared with a general-purpose LLM (ChatGPT-4o) for chest radiograph interpretation.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 500 anonymized chest radiographs from a single tertiary care center were analyzed. Four board-certified radiologists independently evaluated AI-generated reports from both models. Key outcomes included key finding detection (categorized as complete, partial, or inconsistent), report generation time, and report discrepancies assessed using the RADPEER scoring system. Agreement between original and M4CXR-assisted RADPEER scores was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and weighted Cohen's kappa. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, and chi-square tests.
resultsM4CXR demonstrated significantly higher report consistency than GPT-4o, with complete concordance observed in 55.8% versus 19.8% of cases, and lower inconsistency rates (25.2% vs. 46.4%, P<.001). The use of M4CXR significantly reduced report generation time compared with unaided interpretation (16.3 ± 12.9 s vs. 179.2 ± 50.4 s, P<.001). RADPEER-based discrepancy analysis revealed no significant differences between original and AI-assisted interpretations. Agreement between original and M4CXR-assisted RADPEER scores showed good reliability (ICC = 0.701), and weighted kappa analysis showed substantial agreement (κ
conclusionsDomain-specific multimodal AI model evaluated in this study demonstrated higher diagnostic consistency than the general-purpose LLM evaluated under the study conditions. These findings suggest the potential of specialized AI models as viable assistive tools, while highlighting the complementary utility of general-purpose LLMs in broader clinical contexts. Future integration should prioritize human-AI collaboration and prospective multi-center validation.
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.