Comparative Evaluation of BI-RADS Classification, Clinical Management, and Diagnostic Performance in Breast Ultrasound Reports Using ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Seminars in Ultrasound Ct and Mri Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-25 DOI:10.1053/j.sult.2025.10.002
Duygu Erkal , Mehmet Tonkaz , Tümay Bekci , Gökhan Tonkaz
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of BI-RADS Classification, Clinical Management, and Diagnostic Performance in Breast Ultrasound Reports Using ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3","authors":"Duygu Erkal ,&nbsp;Mehmet Tonkaz ,&nbsp;Tümay Bekci ,&nbsp;Gökhan Tonkaz","doi":"10.1053/j.sult.2025.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aimed to compare the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifications, clinical management recommendations, and diagnostic performance of two artificial intelligence (AI) systems—ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3—with those of an experienced radiologist in interpreting breast ultrasound reports. The clinical inconsistency and referral safety of the AI systems were assessed. A total of 595 breast ultrasound reports were independently and blindly assessed by a radiologist and two AI systems—ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3. Observers provided BI-RADS categories and management recommendations based on the findings section. Diagnostic performance was assessed using histopathological diagnosis or ≥ 24-month follow-up as the standard. Clinical inconsistency means discordance between the BI-RADS categories and corresponding recommendations. Referral safety was quantified using a standardized referral safety score. Interobserver agreement was substantial for both BI-RADS classification (κ = 0.65) and management recommendations (κ = 0.79). The radiologist recorded the highest malignancy detection sensitivity (0.989), followed by DeepSeek-V3 (0.968) and ChatGPT (0.927). Specificity (0.735–0.753) and negative predictive values (0.981–0.997) were comparable across the models, while positive predictive values were limited (0.403–0.436). BI-RADS and management recommendations for ChatGPT were consistent, whereas DeepSeek-V3 had a 0.4% rate (p &gt;.05). Referral safety scores were similar (ChatGPT: 0.44; DeepSeek-V3: 0.46). ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 demonstrated substantial consistency with expert interpretations and acceptable diagnostic performance in US breast evaluations. Although radiologists demonstrated the most accurate and balanced performance, these findings suggest that ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 may aid radiology decision support, pending further validation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49541,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Ultrasound Ct and Mri","volume":"47 1","pages":"Pages 17-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Ultrasound Ct and Mri","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887217125000629","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifications, clinical management recommendations, and diagnostic performance of two artificial intelligence (AI) systems—ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3—with those of an experienced radiologist in interpreting breast ultrasound reports. The clinical inconsistency and referral safety of the AI systems were assessed. A total of 595 breast ultrasound reports were independently and blindly assessed by a radiologist and two AI systems—ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3. Observers provided BI-RADS categories and management recommendations based on the findings section. Diagnostic performance was assessed using histopathological diagnosis or ≥ 24-month follow-up as the standard. Clinical inconsistency means discordance between the BI-RADS categories and corresponding recommendations. Referral safety was quantified using a standardized referral safety score. Interobserver agreement was substantial for both BI-RADS classification (κ = 0.65) and management recommendations (κ = 0.79). The radiologist recorded the highest malignancy detection sensitivity (0.989), followed by DeepSeek-V3 (0.968) and ChatGPT (0.927). Specificity (0.735–0.753) and negative predictive values (0.981–0.997) were comparable across the models, while positive predictive values were limited (0.403–0.436). BI-RADS and management recommendations for ChatGPT were consistent, whereas DeepSeek-V3 had a 0.4% rate (p >.05). Referral safety scores were similar (ChatGPT: 0.44; DeepSeek-V3: 0.46). ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 demonstrated substantial consistency with expert interpretations and acceptable diagnostic performance in US breast evaluations. Although radiologists demonstrated the most accurate and balanced performance, these findings suggest that ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 may aid radiology decision support, pending further validation.
使用chatgpt - 40和DeepSeek-V3对乳腺超声报告中BI-RADS分类、临床管理和诊断性能的比较评价
本研究旨在比较两种人工智能(AI)系统(chatgpt - 40和deepseek - v3)的乳腺成像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)分类、临床管理建议和诊断性能,以及经验丰富的放射科医生在解释乳腺超声报告方面的表现。评估人工智能系统的临床不一致性和转诊安全性。一名放射科医生和两个人工智能系统(chatgpt - 40和DeepSeek-V3)对总共595份乳房超声报告进行了独立和盲目的评估。观察员根据调查结果一节提出了BI-RADS分类和管理建议。以组织病理学诊断或≥24个月的随访为标准评估诊断表现。临床不一致是指BI-RADS分类与相应推荐之间的不一致。采用标准化转诊安全评分对转诊安全性进行量化。观察者间对于BI-RADS分类(κ = 0.65)和管理建议(κ = 0.79)的一致性都很大。放射科医生的恶性肿瘤检测灵敏度最高(0.989),其次是DeepSeek-V3(0.968)和ChatGPT(0.927)。各模型的特异性(0.735 ~ 0.753)和阴性预测值(0.981 ~ 0.997)具有可比性,阳性预测值有限(0.403 ~ 0.436)。BI-RADS和ChatGPT的管理建议是一致的,而DeepSeek-V3的发生率为0.4% (p < 0.05)。转诊安全性评分相似(ChatGPT: 0.44; DeepSeek-V3: 0.46)。chatgpt - 40和DeepSeek-V3在美国乳房评估中显示了与专家解释和可接受的诊断性能的基本一致性。虽然放射科医生表现出最准确和平衡的表现,但这些发现表明,chatgpt - 40和DeepSeek-V3可能有助于放射学决策支持,有待进一步验证。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI is directed to all physicians involved in the performance and interpretation of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging procedures. It is a timely source for the publication of new concepts and research findings directly applicable to day-to-day clinical practice. The articles describe the performance of various procedures together with the authors'' approach to problems of interpretation.
×
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
小红书