Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Performance of GPT-4 on the American College of Radiology In-training Examination: Evaluating Accuracy, Model Drift,
David L Payne1, Kush Purohit2, Walter Morales Borrero2
1Stony Brook University Hospital Department of Radiology, 101 Nicolls Road, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA (D.L.P., K.P., W.M.B., K.C., M.H., M.M., M.J.); Stony Brook University Department of Biomedical Informatics, 1 Lauterbur Drive, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA (D.L.P., P.P.).
Rationale And Objectives:
In our study, we evaluate GPT-4's performance on the American College of Radiology (ACR) 2022 Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination (DXIT). We perform multiple experiments across time points to assess for model drift, as well as after fine-tuning to assess for differences in accuracy.
Materials And Methods:
Questions were sequentially input into GPT-4 with a standardized prompt. Each answer was recorded and overall accuracy was calculated, as was logic-adjusted accuracy, and accuracy on image-based questions. This experiment was repeated several months later to assess for model drift, then again after the performance of fine-tuning to assess for changes in GPT's performance.
Results:
GPT-4 achieved 58.5% overall accuracy, lower than the PGY-3 average (61.9%) but higher than the PGY-2 average (52.8%). Adjusted accuracy was 52.8%. GPT-4 showed significantly higher (p = 0.012) confidence for correct answers (87.1%) compared to incorrect (84.0%). Performance on image-based questions was significantly poorer (p < 0.001) at 45.4% compared to text-only questions (80.0%), with adjusted accuracy for image-based questions of 36.4%. When the questions were repeated, GPT-4 chose a different answer 25.5% of the time and there was no change in accuracy. Fine-tuning did not improve accuracy.
Conclusion:
GPT-4 performed between PGY-2 and PGY-3 levels on the 2022 DXIT, significantly poorer on image-based questions, and with large variability in answer choices across time points. Exploratory experiments in fine-tuning did not improve performance. This study underscores the potential and risks of using minimally-prompted general AI models in interpreting radiologic images as a diagnostic tool. Implementers of general AI radiology systems should exercise caution given the possibility of spurious yet confident responses.
More Related Videos
06:53Management of Respiratory Motion Artefacts in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography using an Amplitude-Based Optimal Respiratory Gating Algorithm
Published on: July 23, 2020
05:04Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Positron Emission Tomography
One of the main requirements of a PET scan is a positron-emitting radioisotope, which is produced in a cyclotron and then attached to a substance used by the part of the body being...
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test