Abstract
Background Using artificial intelligence (AI) to help clinical diagnoses has been an active research topic for more than six decades. Past research, however, has not had the scale and accuracy for use in clinical decision making. The power of large language models (LLMs) may be changing this. In this study, we evaluated the performance and interpretability of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 Vision (GPT-4V), a multimodal LLM, on medical licensing examination questions with images.
Methods We used three sets of multiple-choice questions with images from United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), USMLE question bank for medical students (AMBOSS), and Diagnostic Radiology Qualifying Core Exam (DRQCE) to test GPT-4V’s accuracy and explanation quality. We compared GPT-4V with two other large language models, GPT-4 and ChatGPT, which cannot process images. We also assessed the preference and feedback of healthcare professionals on GPT-4V’s explanations.
Results GPT-4V achieved high accuracies on USMLE (86.2%), AMBOSS (62.0%), and DRQCE (73.1%), outperforming ChatGPT and GPT-4 by relative increase of 131.8% and 64.5% on average. GPT-4V was in the 70th - 80th percentile with AMBOSS users preparing for the exam. GPT-4V also passed the full USMLE exam with an accuracy of 90.7%. GPT-4V’s explanations were preferred by healthcare professionals when it answered correctly, but they revealed several issues such as image misunderstanding, text hallucination, and reasoning error when it answered incorrectly.
Conclusion GPT-4V showed promising results for medical licensing examination questions with images, suggesting its potential for clinical decision support. However, GPT-4V needs to improve its explanation quality and reliability for clinical use.
1-2 sentence description AI models offer potential for imaging diagnostic support tool, but their performance and interpretability are often unclear. Here, the authors show that GPT-4V, a large multimodal language model, can achieve high accuracy on medical licensing exams with images, but also reveal several issues in its explanation quality.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
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.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Added an example to illustrate the potential usage for imaging diagnostic support
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
