Evaluation of GPT-4 for chest X-ray impression generation: A reader study on performance and perception
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The remarkable generative capabilities of multimodal foundation models are currently being explored for a variety of applications. Generating radiological impressions is a challenging task that could significantly reduce the workload of radiologists. In our study we explored and analyzed the generative abilities of GPT-4 for Chest X-ray impression generation. To generate and evaluate impressions of chest X-rays based on different input modalities (image, text, text and image), a blinded radiological report was written for 25-cases of the publicly available NIH-dataset. GPT-4 was given image, finding section or both sequentially to generate an input dependent impression. In a blind randomized reading, 4-radiologists rated the impressions and were asked to classify the impression origin (Human, AI), providing justification for their decision. Lastly text model evaluation metrics and their correlation with the radiological score (summation of the 4 dimensions) was assessed. According to the radiological score, the human-written impression was rated highest, although not significantly different to text-based impressions. The automated evaluation metrics showed moderate to substantial correlations to the radiological score for the image impressions, however individual scores were highly divergent among inputs, indicating insufficient representation of radiological quality. Detection of AI-generated impressions varied by input and was 61% for text-based impressions. Impressions classified as AI-generated had significantly worse radiological scores even when written by a radiologist, indicating potential bias. Our study revealed significant discrepancies between a radiological assessment and common automatic evaluation metrics depending on the model input. The detection of AI-generated findings is subject to bias that highly rated impressions are perceived as human-written.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2023.
Builds on
17 of 28 references.
References · 17
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
- 2017ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale Chest X-ray Database and Benchmarks on Weakly-Supervised Classification and Localization of Common Thorax Diseasescited by 972
- 2023Capabilities of GPT-4 on Medical Challenge Problemscited by 638
- 2023Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Modelscited by 384
- 2020CheXbert: Combining Automatic Labelers and Expert Annotations for Accurate Radiology Report Labeling Using BERTcited by 337
5 more
- 2021RadGraph: Extracting Clinical Entities and Relations from Radiology Reportscited by 319
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2019Entity, Relation, and Event Extraction with Contextualized Span Representationscited by 262
- 2022Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawedcited by 105
- 2023Multimodal Image-Text Matching Improves Retrieval-based Chest X-Ray Report Generationcited by 37
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.