ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the ChatGPT artificial intelligence application in the diagnosis of spontaneous pneumothorax on chest radiograph interpretation.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models for Central Venous Catheter Assessment Chest Radiographs in the Intensive Care Unit.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous pneumothorax is a potentially life-threatening condition commonly diagnosed using chest radiographs. However, interpreting chest X-rays can be challenging due to anatomical overlap and observer variability. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), in detecting pneumothorax on chest radiographs compared to expert thoracic surgeons.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 220 chest radiographs were assessed. Expert consensus classified 110 cases with pneumothorax and 110 without. The images were uploaded to the GPT-4o model without any clinical information, and ChatGPT was asked to identify the presence or absence of pneumothorax. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Subgroup analyses were performed based on pneumothorax size.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated an overall diagnostic accuracy of 83.7%, sensitivity of 70.9%, specificity of 96.4%, positive predictive value of 95.1%, and negative predictive value of 76.8%. The AUC was 0.836 (95% CI: 0.780-0.893). Diagnostic performance was higher for large pneumothoraces (AUC: 0.894) compared to small pneumothoraces (AUC: 0.439). Cohen’s kappa coefficient indicated substantial agreement (κ=0.673; 95%CI: 0.575-0.771) with expert evaluations.
conclusionsChatGPT demonstrates potential in detecting pneumothorax on chest radiographs, particularly in cases of large pneumothorax. However, its limited sensitivity for small pneumothoraces raises significant concerns about its reliability in clinical decision-making. Any use of ChatGPT in diagnostic workflows should be approached with caution, as unverified outputs may lead to inappropriate interventions or under-triaging. Therefore, the model is not suitable as a standalone diagnostic or triage tool. Its potential utility may lie in exploratory or supervised settings where expert oversight is available, but further validation is required before clinical implementation can be considered.
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.