ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Blind spots in artificial intelligence systems: poor identification of self-generated medical images-evidence-based cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly adopted in scientific visualization, clinical sciences, medical education, and health sciences research. Despite its impressive generative capabilities, the AI role remains poorly established in some areas. This study aims to investigate whether AI systems, ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini 1.5 Pro, can identify their own generated images. Methods: In this study, AI systems, OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini 1.5 Pro, were employed to generate and identify medical science images. AI-generated images in medical science span 16 clinical illustrations: 8 anatomical and 8 pathophysiological mechanisms. The images were subsequently reintroduced into the same system for identification. The descriptive statistics, including numbers, percentages, and accuracy rates, across the images were analyzed. For a correct answer or an incorrect answer, a score of 1 was allocated; a Results: The results revealed that Artificial Intelligence models, ChatGPT and Google Gemini, were significantly less able to identify AI-generated images correctly. There were significantly higher incorrect rates than correct identification rates for AI-generated images overall (27/32 incorrect vs. 5/32 correct; 84.37% vs. 15.62%; Conclusion: Artificial Intelligence models, ChatGPT and Google Gemini, have limited ability to identify AI-generated images correctly. The results demonstrate structured, architecture-dependent patterns of image identification dysfunction. The study emphasizes implications for AI governance and validation protocols in research, medicine, and medical education.
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.