ArticleDigital health
An assessment of ChatGPT in error detection for thyroid ultrasound reports: A comparative study with ultrasound physicians.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From zero-shot to fine-tuning: optimize large language models for error detection of ultrasound reports.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-assisted evaluation of dysphagia in head and neck cancer radiotherapy patients: A practical tool.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates the performance of GPT-4o in detecting errors in ACR TIRADS ultrasound reports and its potential to reduce report generation time. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 200 thyroid ultrasound reports from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University was conducted, with reports categorized as correct or containing up to three errors. GPT-4o's performance was compared with ultrasound physicians of varying experience levels in error detection and processing time. Results: GPT-4o detected 90.0% (180/200) of errors, slightly less than the best-performing senior ultrasound physician's 93.0% (186/200) with no significant difference ( Conclusions: GPT-4o is comparable to experienced ultrasound physicians in error detection and significantly improves report processing efficiency, offering a valuable tool for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and aiding junior residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.