{"title":"将 ChatGPT 作为放射组学研究质量评估的有效工具。","authors":"Ismail Mese, Burak Kocak","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11122-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o in assessing the methodological quality of radiomics research using the radiomics quality score (RQS) compared to human experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Published in European Radiology, European Radiology Experimental, and Insights into Imaging between 2023 and 2024, open-access and peer-reviewed radiomics research articles with creative commons attribution license (CC-BY) were included in this study. Pre-prints from MedRxiv were also included to evaluate potential peer-review bias. Using the RQS, each study was independently assessed twice by ChatGPT-4o and by two radiologists with consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 52 open-access and peer-reviewed articles were included in this study. Both ChatGPT-4o evaluation (average of two readings) and human experts had a median RQS of 14.5 (40.3% percentage score) (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed no statistically significant difference between the readings of ChatGPT and human experts (corrected p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient for intra-rater reliability of ChatGPT-4o was 0.905 (95% CI: 0.840-0.944), and those for inter-rater reliability with human experts for each evaluation of ChatGPT-4o were 0.859 (95% CI: 0.756-0.919) and 0.914 (95% CI: 0.855-0.949), corresponding to good to excellent reliability for all. The evaluation by ChatGPT-4o took less time (2.9-3.5 min per article) compared to human experts (13.9 min per article by one reader). Item-wise reliability analysis showed ChatGPT-4o maintained consistently high reliability across almost all RQS items.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT-4o provides reliable and efficient assessments of radiomics research quality. Its evaluations closely align with those of human experts and reduce evaluation time.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Is ChatGPT effective and reliable in evaluating radiomics research quality based on RQS? Findings ChatGPT-4o showed high reliability and efficiency, with evaluations closely matching human experts. It can considerably reduce the time required for radiomics research quality assessment. Clinical relevance ChatGPT-4o offers a quick and reliable automated alternative for evaluating the quality of radiomics research, with the potential to assess radiomics research at a large scale in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"2030-2042"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT as an effective tool for quality evaluation of radiomics research.\",\"authors\":\"Ismail Mese, Burak Kocak\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-11122-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o in assessing the methodological quality of radiomics research using the radiomics quality score (RQS) compared to human experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Published in European Radiology, European Radiology Experimental, and Insights into Imaging between 2023 and 2024, open-access and peer-reviewed radiomics research articles with creative commons attribution license (CC-BY) were included in this study. Pre-prints from MedRxiv were also included to evaluate potential peer-review bias. Using the RQS, each study was independently assessed twice by ChatGPT-4o and by two radiologists with consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 52 open-access and peer-reviewed articles were included in this study. Both ChatGPT-4o evaluation (average of two readings) and human experts had a median RQS of 14.5 (40.3% percentage score) (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed no statistically significant difference between the readings of ChatGPT and human experts (corrected p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient for intra-rater reliability of ChatGPT-4o was 0.905 (95% CI: 0.840-0.944), and those for inter-rater reliability with human experts for each evaluation of ChatGPT-4o were 0.859 (95% CI: 0.756-0.919) and 0.914 (95% CI: 0.855-0.949), corresponding to good to excellent reliability for all. The evaluation by ChatGPT-4o took less time (2.9-3.5 min per article) compared to human experts (13.9 min per article by one reader). Item-wise reliability analysis showed ChatGPT-4o maintained consistently high reliability across almost all RQS items.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT-4o provides reliable and efficient assessments of radiomics research quality. Its evaluations closely align with those of human experts and reduce evaluation time.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Is ChatGPT effective and reliable in evaluating radiomics research quality based on RQS? Findings ChatGPT-4o showed high reliability and efficiency, with evaluations closely matching human experts. It can considerably reduce the time required for radiomics research quality assessment. Clinical relevance ChatGPT-4o offers a quick and reliable automated alternative for evaluating the quality of radiomics research, with the potential to assess radiomics research at a large scale in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2030-2042\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11122-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11122-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
ChatGPT as an effective tool for quality evaluation of radiomics research.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o in assessing the methodological quality of radiomics research using the radiomics quality score (RQS) compared to human experts.
Methods: Published in European Radiology, European Radiology Experimental, and Insights into Imaging between 2023 and 2024, open-access and peer-reviewed radiomics research articles with creative commons attribution license (CC-BY) were included in this study. Pre-prints from MedRxiv were also included to evaluate potential peer-review bias. Using the RQS, each study was independently assessed twice by ChatGPT-4o and by two radiologists with consensus.
Results: In total, 52 open-access and peer-reviewed articles were included in this study. Both ChatGPT-4o evaluation (average of two readings) and human experts had a median RQS of 14.5 (40.3% percentage score) (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed no statistically significant difference between the readings of ChatGPT and human experts (corrected p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient for intra-rater reliability of ChatGPT-4o was 0.905 (95% CI: 0.840-0.944), and those for inter-rater reliability with human experts for each evaluation of ChatGPT-4o were 0.859 (95% CI: 0.756-0.919) and 0.914 (95% CI: 0.855-0.949), corresponding to good to excellent reliability for all. The evaluation by ChatGPT-4o took less time (2.9-3.5 min per article) compared to human experts (13.9 min per article by one reader). Item-wise reliability analysis showed ChatGPT-4o maintained consistently high reliability across almost all RQS items.
Conclusion: ChatGPT-4o provides reliable and efficient assessments of radiomics research quality. Its evaluations closely align with those of human experts and reduce evaluation time.
Key points: Question Is ChatGPT effective and reliable in evaluating radiomics research quality based on RQS? Findings ChatGPT-4o showed high reliability and efficiency, with evaluations closely matching human experts. It can considerably reduce the time required for radiomics research quality assessment. Clinical relevance ChatGPT-4o offers a quick and reliable automated alternative for evaluating the quality of radiomics research, with the potential to assess radiomics research at a large scale in the future.
期刊介绍：
European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field.
This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies.
From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
