Assessing the Anatomical Accuracy of AI-Generated Medical Illustrations: A Comparative Study of Text-to-Image Generator Tools in Anatomy Education.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q1 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY
Clinical Anatomy Pub Date : 2025-07-09 DOI:10.1002/ca.70002
Mamdouh Eldesoqui, Emad A Albadawi, Khalid I AlQumaizi, Maryam Nizar Mohammad Radwan, Hasnaa Ali Ebrahim, Manar Abd Elaziz Elsaid
{"title":"Assessing the Anatomical Accuracy of AI-Generated Medical Illustrations: A Comparative Study of Text-to-Image Generator Tools in Anatomy Education.","authors":"Mamdouh Eldesoqui, Emad A Albadawi, Khalid I AlQumaizi, Maryam Nizar Mohammad Radwan, Hasnaa Ali Ebrahim, Manar Abd Elaziz Elsaid","doi":"10.1002/ca.70002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, human anatomy education has been an essential part of medical training, depending on cadaveric dissection and anatomical representations. However, financial and ethical limitations have resulted in a decline in conventional teaching techniques, necessitating the investigation of alternative resources such as digital drawings and artificial intelligence (AI). The aim of this research was to assess and compare the anatomical precision of graphics produced by four AI text-to-image generators: Microsoft Bing, DeepAI, Freepik, and Gemini, emphasizing their value in medical education. On February 6, 2025, four AI text-to-image generators were used. Prompts for creating intricate anatomical images included the human heart, brain, skeletal thorax, and hand bones. Two anatomists and a radiologist evaluated the pictures produced according to anatomical standards. Bing and Gemini generated anatomically correct representations of the human heart, but DeepAI and Freepik were less accurate. All generators offered accurate reconstructions of the human brain; however, there were disparities in sulci and gyri, with Gemini performing best. Only Gemini delivered a correct sternum; the other generators misrepresented the rib count. The Gemini platform provided a satisfactory depiction of the human hand skeleton, but the outputs from other text-to-image generators were not anatomically accurate. This work examines the potential of generative AI in medical illustration, noting significant limitations in accuracy and detail, especially with bony structures. Although AI accelerates the drawing process, it cannot replace the proficiency of skilled medical illustrators. Continuous assessment and improvement of AI-generated material are essential to ensure that the criteria mandated for medical education are met.</p>","PeriodicalId":50687,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Anatomy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Anatomy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.70002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, human anatomy education has been an essential part of medical training, depending on cadaveric dissection and anatomical representations. However, financial and ethical limitations have resulted in a decline in conventional teaching techniques, necessitating the investigation of alternative resources such as digital drawings and artificial intelligence (AI). The aim of this research was to assess and compare the anatomical precision of graphics produced by four AI text-to-image generators: Microsoft Bing, DeepAI, Freepik, and Gemini, emphasizing their value in medical education. On February 6, 2025, four AI text-to-image generators were used. Prompts for creating intricate anatomical images included the human heart, brain, skeletal thorax, and hand bones. Two anatomists and a radiologist evaluated the pictures produced according to anatomical standards. Bing and Gemini generated anatomically correct representations of the human heart, but DeepAI and Freepik were less accurate. All generators offered accurate reconstructions of the human brain; however, there were disparities in sulci and gyri, with Gemini performing best. Only Gemini delivered a correct sternum; the other generators misrepresented the rib count. The Gemini platform provided a satisfactory depiction of the human hand skeleton, but the outputs from other text-to-image generators were not anatomically accurate. This work examines the potential of generative AI in medical illustration, noting significant limitations in accuracy and detail, especially with bony structures. Although AI accelerates the drawing process, it cannot replace the proficiency of skilled medical illustrators. Continuous assessment and improvement of AI-generated material are essential to ensure that the criteria mandated for medical education are met.

评估人工智能生成的医学插图的解剖准确性:解剖学教育中文本到图像生成器工具的比较研究。
从历史上看,人体解剖学教育一直是医学培训的重要组成部分,这取决于尸体解剖和解剖学表征。然而,经济和道德的限制导致了传统教学技术的衰落,有必要研究数字绘图和人工智能(AI)等替代资源。本研究的目的是评估和比较四个人工智能文本到图像生成器(Microsoft Bing、DeepAI、Freepik和Gemini)生成的图形的解剖精度,强调它们在医学教育中的价值。2025年2月6日,使用了四个人工智能文本到图像生成器。创建复杂解剖图像的提示包括人类的心脏、大脑、胸腔骨骼和手骨。两名解剖学家和一名放射科医生根据解剖学标准对所产生的图像进行了评估。Bing和Gemini生成了解剖学上正确的人类心脏图像,但DeepAI和Freepik就不那么准确了。所有的发电机都提供了人类大脑的精确重建;然而,脑沟和脑回存在差异,双子座表现最好。只有双子座的胸骨是正确的;其他的生成器歪曲了肋数。Gemini平台提供了令人满意的人类手部骨骼描述,但其他文本到图像生成器的输出在解剖学上并不准确。这项工作考察了生成式人工智能在医学插图中的潜力,注意到准确性和细节方面的显着局限性,特别是骨骼结构。虽然人工智能加速了绘图过程,但它无法取代熟练的医疗插画师的熟练程度。持续评估和改进人工智能生成的材料对于确保满足医学教育规定的标准至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Anatomy
Clinical Anatomy 医学-解剖学与形态学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Anatomy is the Official Journal of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists and the British Association of Clinical Anatomists. The goal of Clinical Anatomy is to provide a medium for the exchange of current information between anatomists and clinicians. This journal embraces anatomy in all its aspects as applied to medical practice. Furthermore, the journal assists physicians and other health care providers in keeping abreast of new methodologies for patient management and informs educators of new developments in clinical anatomy and teaching techniques. Clinical Anatomy publishes original and review articles of scientific, clinical, and educational interest. Papers covering the application of anatomic principles to the solution of clinical problems and/or the application of clinical observations to expand anatomic knowledge are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信