ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2026
Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Urogenital Radiological Findings: Human Expert vs Multimodal Generative AI Classification Performance.
Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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
Background: Multimodal generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly evaluated for medical image classification, but their performance in interdisciplinary urogenital radiological assessment remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the overall and domain-specific classification performance and uncertainty patterns of two domain-specific human specialists and three multimodal generative AI systems in a standardized single-image urogenital radiology task. Methods: This exploratory pilot comparative study evaluated 60 publicly available anonymized radiological cases selected from Radiopaedia, including 20 urological anomaly/variation cases, 20 gynecological anomaly/variation cases, and 20 normal anatomy cases. Two human specialists and three multimodal AI systems (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Microsoft Copilot) independently classified randomized single images into predefined categories under blinded conditions. Overall accuracy was summarized with 95% confidence intervals, while domain-specific accuracy and uncertain/unable-to-classify responses were analyzed descriptively. Results: Overall accuracy was highest for Gemini 1.5 Pro (36/60, 60.0%; 95% CI, 47.4-71.4), followed by the urologist (34/60, 56.7%; 95% CI, 44.1-68.4), GPT-4o (31/60, 51.7%; 95% CI, 39.3-63.8), the gynecologic oncologist (29/60, 48.3%; 95% CI, 36.2-60.7), and Copilot (19/60, 31.7%; 95% CI, 21.3-44.2). Human specialists performed best within their own domains. Gemini performed strongly in urological and gynecological categories but had low normal-category accuracy (2/20, 10.0%), suggesting overclassification. Conclusion: In this standardized single-image pilot task, multimodal AI systems showed potential as supportive classification tools but also demonstrated clinically relevant limitations, particularly false-positive interpretation of normal anatomy. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating and not as evidence of autonomous diagnostic capability.
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.