ArticleRheumatology international2026
Comparative evaluation of large language model-based AI platforms for radiographic assessment in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2026. 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.
- Serum Isthmin-1 and Irisin profiles and their association with clinical parameters in fibromyalgia: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Toward causal artificial intelligence for biologic treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis: current evidence and future directions.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by progressive joint damage. Early diagnosis of this disease is crucial to prevent disability. The traditional interpretation of X-ray images in RA still depends heavily on radiologists, whose availability is limited in many regions across the world. Modern advances in large language models (LLMs) offer potential support for radiological assessments. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) platforms — GPT-5 Thinking, Gemini, and DeepSeek — in identifying radiological signs characteristic of RA on hand X-rays, using the consensus of radiological experts as the reference standard. A comparative diagnostic study was conducted using 20 anonymized radiographs of both hands of patients with clinical signs of RA. Eight specific radiological signs were evaluated: articular space narrowing, deformity, central erosions, marginal erosions, osteopenia, osteophytes, subluxations, and ankylosis. Six certified radiologists independently evaluated the images, and a reference standard was developed. The results of AI model diagnostics were compared with those of experts across 143 observations that could be evaluated. The diagnostic effectiveness was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the Kappa coefficient of agreement. Gemini demonstrated 66% sensitivity, 63% specificity, and 65% accuracy (k = 0.292, p < 0.001). GPT-5 Thinking was characterized by lower sensitivity (56%) and higher specificity (78%) and 66% accuracy (k = 0.350, p < 0.001). DeepSeek showed balanced performance with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 65% each (k = 0.295, p < 0.001). All of the platforms demonstrated fair, statistically significant compliance with expert assessments. The examined LLMs demonstrate limited but statistically significant capabilities for detecting radiological signs of RA, with varying sensitivities and specificities. These models cannot replace expert radiological assessment, but they can serve as auxiliary tools for pre-screening and obtaining opinions for educational purposes, especially in conditions of limited access to specialist radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41936721What 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.