Performance of Multimodal GPT-4V on USMLE with Image: Potential for Imaging Diagnostic Support with Explanations

Introduction

Using computers to help make clinical diagnoses and guide treatments has been a goal of artificial intelligence since its inception.¹ The adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems by hospitals in the US has resulted in an unprecedented amount of digital data associated with patient encounters. Computer-assisted clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) endeavors to enhance clinicians’ decisions with patient information and clinical knowledge.² There is burgeoning interest in CDSS for enhanced imaging³, often termed radiomics, in various disciplines such as breast cancer detection⁴, covid detection⁵, diagnosing congenital cataracts⁶, and hidden fracture location⁷. For a decision to be trustworthy for clinicians, CDSS should not only make the prediction but also provide accurate explanations.^8–10 However, most previous imaging CDSS offers only highlight areas deemed significant by AI,^11–15 providing limited insight into the explanation of the diagnosis.¹⁶

Large language models (LLMs) could generate explanations as they are trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback to follow user requests to explain a question. Typical LLM examples include Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a renowned chatbot released by OpenAI in October 2022, and its successor Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) in March 2023. The influence of ChatGPT is attributed to its conversational prowess and its performance, which approaches or matches human-level competence in cognitive tasks, spanning various domains including medicine.¹⁷ ChatGPT has achieved commendable results in the United States Medical Licensing Examinations, leading to discussions about the readiness of LLM applications for integration into clinical^18–20, and educational^21–23 environments.

One limitation of ChatGPT is that it may only read and generate text but is unable to process other data modalities, such as images. This limitation, known as the “single-modality,” is a common issue among many LLMs.^24,25 Advancements in multimodal LLM promise enhanced capabilities and integration with diverse data sources.^26,27 OpenAI’s recent introduction of GPT- 4V has undeniably made strides toward bridging this divide. GPT-4V, a state-of-the-art multimodal LLM, is equipped with visual processing ability, granting it to understand and describe visual content.²⁸ By incorporating GPT-4V into current imaging CDSS, physicians can ask open-ended questions pertaining to a patient’s medical evaluation - taking into account all available information including images, symptoms, lab results, allowing for an interactive experience where AI suggest both decision and explanation to support physicians.

However, the ability of GPT-4V to analyze medical images still remains unknown. GPT-4V must perform comparably to humans on assessments of medical knowledge and reasoning such that users have sufficient confidence in its responses. In this work, we aim to assess GPT-4V performance on medical licensing examination questions with images, as well as to analyze its explanation for healthcare professional interpretability.

Method

This cross-sectional study compared the performance between GPT-4V, GPT-4, and ChatGPT on medical licensing examination questions answering. This study also investigates the quality of GPT-4V explanation in answering these questions. The study protocol was deemed exempt by Institutional Review Board at the VA Bedford Healthcare System and informed consent was waived due to minimal risk to patients. This study was conducted in October 2023.

How to Answer Image Questions using GPT-4V Prompt

GPT-4V took image and text data as inputs to generate textual outputs. Given that input format (prompt) played a key role in optimizing model performance, we followed the standard prompting guidelines of the visual question-answering task. Specifically, we prompted GPT-4V by first adding the image, then appending context (i.e., patient information) and questions, and finally providing multiple-choice options, each separated by a new line. An example user prompt and GPT-4V response are shown in Figure 1. When multiple sub-images existed in the image, we uploaded multiple sub-images to GPT-4V. We did not use hint in the prompt unless otherwise specified. The response consists of the selected option as an answer, supported by a textual explanation to substantiate the selected decision. When using ChatGPT and GPT-4 models that cannot handle image data, images were omitted from the prompt. Responses were collected from the September 25, 2023 version of models. Each question was manually entered into the ChatGPT website independently (new chat window).

Figure 1. A case study of GPT-4V in answering USMLE questions with chest x-ray.

Input prompt and output response are separated by “GPT Response Below”. Option D is the correct answer and is selected by GPT-4V without hint.

Question: A 55-year-old woman comes to the physician because of a 4-day history of chest pain and coughing up blood. The chest discomfort is characterized as piercing and aggravated by coughing. She encountered symptoms of a sore throat and nasal congestion 11 days prior. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 15 years ago and utilizes a wheelchair for movement. A 40-year history of smoking a pack of cigarettes daily is noted, but she abstains from alcohol. Her current prescriptions include ocrelizumab and dantrolene. Temperature is 37.9°C (100.2°F), pulse is 105/min, and blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg. Lung auscultation reveals occasional inspiratory crackles in the right lower lobe, while the cardiac exam shows no abnormalities. Neurologic examination shows stiffness and decreased sensation of the lower extremities; there is diffuse hyperreflexia. An x-ray of the chest is provided. Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?

Options:

A: Sarcoidosis

B: Pericarditis

C: Bacterial pneumonia D: Pulmonary embolism E: Pneumothorax

Let’s think step by step. First, analyze each option one by one, and then give your final prediction and reasons to be sure we have the right answer.

GPT Response Below:

Let’s go through the information provided and evaluate each option based on the clinical picture and the chest x-ray:

**Clinical Information**:

- 55-year-old woman

- Smoked for 40 years (20 pack-years)

- Recent upper respiratory tract symptoms

- 3-day history of chest pain and cough with blood-tinged sputum

- Chest pain is sharp, stabbing, and worsened with coughing

- History of multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair

- On ocrelizumab and dantrolene

- Vital signs show mild fever and elevated pulse

- Auscultation shows crackles in the right lower lung

**Chest X-ray**:

Hampton hump is a radiologic sign which consists of a shallow wedge-shaped opacity in the periphery of the lung.

**Options**:

A: **Sarcoidosis** - Sarcoidosis often presents with bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy on chest x-ray. The given image doesn’t seem to show this. Additionally, the acute symptoms don’t align well with a diagnosis of sarcoidosis.

B: **Pericarditis** - This would present with chest pain that’s positional and relieved by sitting forward. The x-ray provided doesn’t suggest pericardial effusion. Unlikely.

C: **Bacterial pneumonia** - Given her symptoms and the crackles in the right lower lung, this is a possibility. However, the chest x-ray would typically show a lobar consolidation or infiltrate which isn’t clearly seen here.

D: **Pulmonary embolism** - Given her history of immobility (uses a wheelchair) and the acute onset of sharp, stabbing chest pain exacerbated by coughing, this is a strong contender. The presence of a Hampton Hump should further increase suspicion of a PE.

E: **Pneumothorax** - This would present with sudden onset chest pain and shortness of breath. On x-ray, you’d expect to see a clear line indicating the collapsed lung and no lung markings beyond that line. This is not evident in the provided image.

**Conclusion**:

Based on the provided information and the chest x-ray, the most likely diagnosis is:

**D: Pulmonary embolism**.

The reason for this choice is the combination of her risk factors (immobility, smoking), her clinical presentation (sharp, stabbing chest pain exacerbated by coughing, blood-tinged sputum), and the fact that the x-ray doesn’t clearly support the other diagnoses.

Results

Discussion

A prevailing research direction involves thoroughly investigating ChatGPT’s ability to handle a diverse set of medical examination questions.^21,34–36 GPT-4 was recently introduced as the upgraded model for ChatGPT. Studies showed that GPT-4 outperforms ChatGPT in various medical tasks.^31,37 The collective insights illustrated the power of ChatGPT and GPT-4 in medical exam answering and the potential for medical decision support. However, previous evaluations were only limited to questions without images.

In this study on the evaluation of medical exam questions with images, we found that GPT-4V selects more correct choices compared to ChatGPT and GPT-4 as shown in Table 1. Hence, when evaluating all questions in the USMLE sample exam, GPT-4V achieved an accuracy of 90.7% outperforming ChatGPT (58.5%) and GPT-4 (83.8%). The passing standard for the USMLE was typically set at 60%, indicating that the GPT-4V performed at a level similar to a medical graduate in the final year of study. The accuracy of GPT-4V highlights its grasp over biomedical and clinical sciences, essential for medical practice, but also showcases its ability in patient management and problem-solving skills,³⁸ both of which indicate the potential for clinical routines, such as summarizing radiology reports³⁹ and differential diagnosis^40,41. We further explored GPT-4V’s potential in CDSS through a consultation conversation. By posing follow-up queries and providing visual hints from physicians, GPT-4V showed promise in CDSS applications, including interpreting CT scan interpretation, differential diagnoses, and follow-up exams recommendation. However, the quality of GPT-4V’s explanation to support its clinical decision making remained an open question, bridging the focus of our study to the next segment of our analysis.

In terms of explanation quality, we found that more than 80% of responses from GPT-4V provided an interpretation of the image and question of its answer selection, regardless of correctness. This suggested that GPT-4V consistently took into account both the image and question elements while generating responses. Figure 1 illustrates an example of high-quality explanation that utilizes both text and image in answering a hard question. More than 70% of students answered incorrectly on the first try, because both bacterial pneumonia and pulmonary embolism may involve symptoms such as cough. To differentiate them, GPT-4V correctly interpreted the X-ray with a radiologic sign of Hampton hump, which further increased the suspicion of pulmonary infarction rather than pneumonia.⁴² To show the need for X-ray as mentioned in the explanation, we removed the image from the input, and GPT-4V switched the answer to bacterial pneumonia while also acknowledging the possibility of pulmonary infarction. This change in response demonstrated the high quality of the GPT-4V explanation, as its explanation about X-ray was not fictional and it truly needed the X-ray to answer this question. The high quality of GPT-4V explanations was also supported by experts’ preference voting. When comparing explanations generated by experts with ones generated by GPT-4V, experts’ preference for the expert over the GPT-4V was minimal (n=4) when GPT-4V correctly answered the question (n=95). Previous studies have shown limited utilization of CDSS as most of them offered limited decision explanation and thus gained limited trust among physicians (unlike their colleagues).^43–46 Thus, GPT-4V could enhance the effectiveness and trustworthiness of CDSS by providing high-quality, expert-preferred explanations, encouraging broader adoption and more confident utilization among physicians.

We also found that the accuracy of GPT-4V was related to the comprehensiveness of the explanation. GPT-4V offered a comprehensive explanation in 79.0% of correct responses. In contrast, only 7.2% of the wrong answers had a comprehensive explanation. Thus, the absence of key information may be the cause of inaccurate answers. These observations suggested that enhancing the performance of models can be achieved by training GPT-4V with more intricate, clinical-specific data with insights from experienced physicians such as UpToDate,⁴⁷ and medical research literature such as PubMed.²⁶

Image misunderstanding was the primary reason why GPT-4V answered incorrectly. Out of 55 wrong responses, 42 (76.3%) were due to misunderstanding of the image. In comparison, only 10 (18.2%) of the mistakes were attributed to text misinterpretation. GPT-4V’s proficiency in processing images was considerably lagging behind its text-handling capability. To circumvent its image interpretation issue, we tried to additionally prompt GPT-4V with a short hint that described the image. We found that 40.5% (17 out of 42) responses switched to the correct answer. Corrections from the hint indicated that GPT-4V could be easily persuaded. Within a conversational interface, medical professionals can readily guide and refine GPT-4V’s initial outputs. This adaptability could be advantageous for physicians, as it allows for real-time adjustments and ensures that the generated information aligns more closely with the clinical context or the specific details of a patient’s case.⁴⁷ With customized hint from physicians, GPT-4V enhances the utility and reliability as an auxiliary tool.

Another drawback of GPT-4V involved its tendency to produce factually inaccurate responses, a problem often referred to as the hallucination effect, which is prevalent among many large language models such as GPT-4V.⁴⁸ We found that more than 18% of GPT-4V explanations contain hallucinations. Thus when designing clinical support tools for high-risk situations such as patient diagnosing, it is crucial to integrate GPT-4V and a probabilistic model with confidence interval, indicating the reliability of the response.⁴⁹ This would enhance the reliability of the CDSS response when additional physician review is warranted.¹⁶

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, our findings are constrained in their applicability due to the modest sample size. We gathered 226 questions that included images, which might not comprehensively represent all medical disciplines. Second, while GPT-4V has demonstrated proficiency in medical license examination, its real-world applicability, especially in dynamic, user-interactive scenarios, remains untested. Therefore, while the results are promising, extrapolating the efficacy of GPT-4V to broader clinical applications requires appropriate benchmarks and further research.²⁰

Conclusion

While GPT-4V showcased remarkable accuracy across a spectrum of medical disciplines and varying difficulty levels in this study, it is paramount that further refinement be undertaken, particularly in enhancing its explanatory capabilities prior to any clinical assimilation. Medical students and professionals must be acutely aware of its limitations and consistently cross-verify with authoritative sources. Notably, state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4V, even with their sophisticated capabilities, are merely on the brink of supplanting physicians. Their performance in specialized examinations, though noteworthy, still exhibits imperfections, which can lead to consequential inaccuracies and uncertainties. Coupled with the well-known ethical concerns, the credibility and readiness of LLMs for clinical settings remain under scrutiny. However, the preliminary results are promising, suggesting that the present technology is poised to influence clinical practices. As research and development persist, we anticipate a more extensive and profound integration of AI in the medical domain.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.