Litcius/Paper detail

Evaluating ChatGPT's performance across radiology subspecialties: A meta-analysis of board-style examination accuracy and variability

Dan Nguyen, Grace Hyun J. Kim, Arash Bedayat

2025Clinical Imaging11 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are increasingly used in medicine due to their ability to synthesize information and support clinical decision-making. While prior research has evaluated ChatGPT's performance on medical board exams, limited data exist on radiology-specific exams especially considering prompt strategies and input modalities. This meta-analysis reviews ChatGPT's performance on radiology board-style questions, assessing accuracy across radiology subspecialties, prompt engineering methods, GPT model versions, and input modalities. METHODS: Searches in PubMed and SCOPUS identified 163 articles, of which 16 met inclusion criteria after excluding irrelevant topics and non-board exam evaluations. Data extracted included subspecialty topics, accuracy, question count, GPT model, input modality, prompting strategies, and access dates. Statistical analyses included two-proportion z-tests, a binomial generalized linear model (GLM), and meta-regression with random effects (Stata v18.0, R v4.3.1). RESULTS: Across 7024 questions, overall accuracy was 58.83 % (95 % CI, 55.53-62.13). Performance varied widely by subspecialty, highest in emergency radiology (73.00 %) and lowest in musculoskeletal radiology (49.24 %). GPT-4 and GPT-4o significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 (p < .001), but visual inputs yielded lower accuracy (46.52 %) compared to textual inputs (67.10 %, p < .001). Prompting strategies showed significant improvement (p < .01) with basic prompts (66.23 %) compared to no prompts (59.70 %). A modest but significant decline in performance over time was also observed (p < .001). DISCUSSION: ChatGPT demonstrates promising but inconsistent performance in radiology board-style questions. Limitations in visual reasoning, heterogeneity across studies, and prompt engineering variability highlight areas requiring targeted optimization.

Topics & Concepts

SubspecialtyMedicineMeta-analysisScopusMedical physicsModalitiesInstitutional review boardMEDLINERadiologyPathologySurgeryLawPolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills