MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406384062 · doi:10.1186/s41747-024-00547-w

Can ChatGPT4-vision identify radiologic progression of multiple sclerosis on brain MRI?

2025· article· en· W4406384062 on OpenAlex
Brendan S. Kelly, Sophie Duignan, Prateek Mathur, Henry Dillon, Edward H. Lee, Kristen W. Yeom, Pearse A. Keane, Aonghus Lawlor, Ronan P. Killeen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology Experimental · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience Foundation IrelandHealth Service ExecutiveRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandWellcome TrustCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisNeuroradiologyMedicineNeurologyNeuroscienceRadiologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The large language model ChatGPT can now accept image input with the GPT4-vision (GPT4V) version. We aimed to compare the performance of GPT4V to pretrained U-Net and vision transformer (ViT) models for the identification of the progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Paired coregistered MR images with and without progression were provided as input to ChatGPT4V in a zero-shot experiment to identify radiologic progression. Its performance was compared to pretrained U-Net and ViT models. Accuracy was the primary evaluation metric and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated by bootstrapping. We included 170 patients with MS (50 males, 120 females), aged 21-74 years (mean 42.3), imaged at a single institution from 2019 to 2021, each with 2-5 MRI studies (496 in total). RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients were included, 110 for training, 30 for tuning, and 30 for testing; 100 unseen paired images were randomly selected from the test set for evaluation. Both U-Net and ViT had 94% (95% CI: 89-98%) accuracy while GPT4V had 85% (77-91%). GPT4V gave cautious nonanswers in six cases. GPT4V had precision (specificity), recall (sensitivity), and F1 score of 89% (75-93%), 92% (82-98%), 91 (82-97%) compared to 100% (100-100%), 88 (78-96%), and 0.94 (88-98%) for U-Net and 94% (87-100%), 94 (88-100%), and 94 (89-98%) for ViT. CONCLUSION: The performance of GPT4V combined with its accessibility suggests has the potential to impact AI radiology research. However, misclassified cases and overly cautious non-answers confirm that it is not yet ready for clinical use. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: GPT4V can identify the radiologic progression of MS in a simplified experimental setting. However, GPT4V is not a medical device, and its widespread availability highlights the need for caution and education for lay users, especially those with limited access to expert healthcare. KEY POINTS: Without fine-tuning or the need for prior coding experience, GPT4V can perform a zero-shot radiologic change detection task with reasonable accuracy. However, in absolute terms, in a simplified "spot the difference" medical imaging task, GPT4V was inferior to state-of-the-art computer vision methods. GPT4V's performance metrics were more similar to the ViT than the U-net. This is an exploratory experimental study and GPT4V is not intended for use as a medical device.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it