ChatGPT 与 Gemini:根据放射报告进行 CAD-RADS 评分的准确性和效率比较。

Matthew Silbergleit, Adrienn Tóth, Jordan H Chamberlin, Mohamed Hamouda, Dhiraj Baruah, Sydney Derrick, U Joseph Schoepf, Jeremy R Burt, Ismail M Kabakus
{"title":"ChatGPT 与 Gemini:根据放射报告进行 CAD-RADS 评分的准确性和效率比较。","authors":"Matthew Silbergleit, Adrienn Tóth, Jordan H Chamberlin, Mohamed Hamouda, Dhiraj Baruah, Sydney Derrick, U Joseph Schoepf, Jeremy R Burt, Ismail M Kabakus","doi":"10.1007/s10278-024-01328-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini, and Google Gemini Advanced in generating CAD-RADS scores based on radiology reports. This retrospective study analyzed 100 consecutive coronary computed tomography angiography reports performed between March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, at a single tertiary center. Each report containing a radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS score was processed using four large language models (LLMs) without fine-tuning. The findings section of each report was input into the LLMs, and the models were tasked with generating CAD-RADS scores. The accuracy of LLM-generated scores was compared to the radiologist's score. Additionally, the time taken by each model to complete the task was recorded. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test and interobserver agreement using unweighted Cohen's Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly assigning CAD-RADS scores in 87% of cases (κ = 0.838, α = 0.886), followed by Gemini Advanced with 82.6% accuracy (κ = 0.784, α = 0.897). ChatGPT-3.5, although the fastest (median time = 5 s), was the least accurate (50.5% accuracy, κ = 0.401, α = 0.787). Gemini exhibited a higher failure rate (12%) compared to the other models, with Gemini Advanced slightly improving upon its predecessor. ChatGPT-4o outperformed other LLMs in both accuracy and agreement with radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS scores, though ChatGPT-3.5 was significantly faster. Despite their potential, current publicly available LLMs require further refinement before being deployed for clinical decision-making in CAD-RADS scoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":516858,"journal":{"name":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT vs Gemini: Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency in CAD-RADS Score Assignment from Radiology Reports.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Silbergleit, Adrienn Tóth, Jordan H Chamberlin, Mohamed Hamouda, Dhiraj Baruah, Sydney Derrick, U Joseph Schoepf, Jeremy R Burt, Ismail M Kabakus\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10278-024-01328-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini, and Google Gemini Advanced in generating CAD-RADS scores based on radiology reports. This retrospective study analyzed 100 consecutive coronary computed tomography angiography reports performed between March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, at a single tertiary center. Each report containing a radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS score was processed using four large language models (LLMs) without fine-tuning. The findings section of each report was input into the LLMs, and the models were tasked with generating CAD-RADS scores. The accuracy of LLM-generated scores was compared to the radiologist's score. Additionally, the time taken by each model to complete the task was recorded. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test and interobserver agreement using unweighted Cohen's Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly assigning CAD-RADS scores in 87% of cases (κ = 0.838, α = 0.886), followed by Gemini Advanced with 82.6% accuracy (κ = 0.784, α = 0.897). ChatGPT-3.5, although the fastest (median time = 5 s), was the least accurate (50.5% accuracy, κ = 0.401, α = 0.787). Gemini exhibited a higher failure rate (12%) compared to the other models, with Gemini Advanced slightly improving upon its predecessor. ChatGPT-4o outperformed other LLMs in both accuracy and agreement with radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS scores, though ChatGPT-3.5 was significantly faster. Despite their potential, current publicly available LLMs require further refinement before being deployed for clinical decision-making in CAD-RADS scoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01328-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01328-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估 ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4o、Google Gemini 和 Google Gemini Advanced 根据放射学报告生成 CAD-RADS 评分的准确性和效率。这项回顾性研究分析了 2024 年 3 月 15 日至 2024 年 4 月 1 日期间在一家三级中心进行的 100 份连续冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影报告。使用四个大型语言模型(LLM)对每份包含放射科医生指定的 CAD-RADS 评分的报告进行了处理,未作任何微调。每份报告的检查结果部分都被输入到 LLM 中,模型的任务是生成 CAD-RADS 评分。将 LLM 生成的分数的准确性与放射科医生的分数进行比较。此外,还记录了每个模型完成任务所需的时间。统计分析包括 Mann-Whitney U 检验和使用非加权 Cohen's Kappa 和 Krippendorff's Alpha 的观察者间一致性。ChatGPT-4o 的准确率最高,87% 的病例都能正确分配 CAD-RADS 分数(κ = 0.838,α = 0.886),其次是 Gemini Advanced,准确率为 82.6%(κ = 0.784,α = 0.897)。ChatGPT-3.5 虽然速度最快(中位数时间 = 5 秒),但准确率最低(准确率为 50.5%,κ = 0.401,α = 0.787)。与其他模型相比,Gemini 的失败率较高(12%),而 Gemini Advanced 比其前身略有改进。ChatGPT-4o 在准确性和与放射科医生指定的 CAD-RADS 评分的一致性方面均优于其他 LLM,但 ChatGPT-3.5 明显更快。尽管目前公开发布的 LLMs 具有潜力,但在用于 CAD-RADS 评分的临床决策之前,还需要进一步完善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT vs Gemini: Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency in CAD-RADS Score Assignment from Radiology Reports.

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini, and Google Gemini Advanced in generating CAD-RADS scores based on radiology reports. This retrospective study analyzed 100 consecutive coronary computed tomography angiography reports performed between March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, at a single tertiary center. Each report containing a radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS score was processed using four large language models (LLMs) without fine-tuning. The findings section of each report was input into the LLMs, and the models were tasked with generating CAD-RADS scores. The accuracy of LLM-generated scores was compared to the radiologist's score. Additionally, the time taken by each model to complete the task was recorded. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test and interobserver agreement using unweighted Cohen's Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly assigning CAD-RADS scores in 87% of cases (κ = 0.838, α = 0.886), followed by Gemini Advanced with 82.6% accuracy (κ = 0.784, α = 0.897). ChatGPT-3.5, although the fastest (median time = 5 s), was the least accurate (50.5% accuracy, κ = 0.401, α = 0.787). Gemini exhibited a higher failure rate (12%) compared to the other models, with Gemini Advanced slightly improving upon its predecessor. ChatGPT-4o outperformed other LLMs in both accuracy and agreement with radiologist-assigned CAD-RADS scores, though ChatGPT-3.5 was significantly faster. Despite their potential, current publicly available LLMs require further refinement before being deployed for clinical decision-making in CAD-RADS scoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信