ArticleEuropean radiology2025
ChatGPT as an effective tool for quality evaluation of radiomics research.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiomics for differentiating ruptured intracranial aneurysms: overview, methodological quality evaluation using METRICS and RQS, and feature transportability validation using independent multi-center dataset.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Reporting Quality of Large Language Model Studies: A Cross-Sectional Audit of High-Ranking Radiology and Medical Imaging Journals.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Methodological quality of cardiac CT and MRI radiomics studies assessed using METRICS and RQS by human readers and ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Letter to Editor: Pushing large language models for improved radiomics study and research.European radiology · 2026Article
- Adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): an umbrella review with a comprehensive two-level analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for METRICS (METRICS-E3): an initiative from the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o in the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis 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.
methodsPublished 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.
resultsIn 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.
conclusionChatGPT-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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39406959What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.