ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2025
Text to image generators for anatomical illustrations: potential and limitations.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual representation bias in artificial intelligence-generated depictions of anesthesia, pain, and intensive care professionals.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Beyond Pattern Recognition: Call for Functionally Aware AI for Anatomical Illustration.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Is artificial intelligence getting better at anatomy? A two-year review of ChatGPT's free public versions.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Blind spots in artificial intelligence systems: poor identification of self-generated medical images-evidence-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
purposeIn recent years, artificial intelligence has made significant advances in medical illustration, paralleling progress in many other fields. These tools provide an efficient and cost-effective approach to creating custom illustrations and rapidly visualizing medical and anatomical contents. The aim of this study is to investigate the strengths and limitations of artificial intelligence in generating such illustrations, with a focus on its potential application in anatomy education.
methodsThe present study assessed the ability of ChatGPT, Microsoft Designer, Craiyon and Image FX to create illustrations of the liver, spleen, kidney, their cadaveric forms, and genital organs. Each illustration was independently evaluated by two researchers using a five-point Likert scale based on nine criteria assessing anatomical features, educational utility, and visual quality.
resultsImage FX, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Designer achieved overall scores (3.46; 3.40; and 3.24, respectively), while Craiyon received the lowest score (1.86). Despite the aesthetic appeal, and visual quality of the generated images, a notable lack of anatomical features was observed. Microsoft Designer was restricted by policy from generating both cadaveric organ and genital system images, whereas Image FX, ChatGPT, and Craiyon produced such images despite their limited accuracy.
conclusionsThis study highlights both the capabilities and limitations of artificial intelligence powered text-to-image generators in anatomical illustrations. Future advancements in artificial intelligence models, particularly through the integration of anatomically accurate databases and standardized anatomical terminology, have the potential to significantly increase the accuracy and applicability of these tools in medical education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41015577What 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.