Cited by 33Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A retrieval-augmented chatbot based on GPT-4 provides appropriate differential diagnosis in gastrointestinal radiology: a proof of concept study

Open access
Rau, Stephan, Rau, Alexander, Nattenmüller, Johanna, Fink, Anna, Bamberg, Fabian, Reisert, Marco, Russe, Maximilian F.·2024·European Radiology Experimental

Abstract

Background: We investigated the potential of an imaging-aware GPT-4-based chatbot in providing diagnoses based on imaging descriptions of abdominal pathologies. Methods: Utilizing zero-shot learning via the LlamaIndex framework, GPT-4 was enhanced using the 96 documents from the Radiographics Top 10 Reading List on gastrointestinal imaging, creating a gastrointestinal imaging-aware chatbot (GIA-CB). To assess its diagnostic capability, 50 cases on a variety of abdominal pathologies were created, comprising radiological findings in fluoroscopy, MRI, and CT. We compared the GIA-CB to the generic GPT-4 chatbot (g-CB) in providing the primary and 2 additional differential diagnoses, using interpretations from senior-level radiologists as ground truth. The trustworthiness of the GIA-CB was evaluated by investigating the source documents as provided by the knowledge-retrieval mechanism. Mann–Whitney U test was employed. Results: The GIA-CB demonstrated a high capability to identify the most appropriate differential diagnosis in 39/50 cases (78%), significantly surpassing the g-CB in 27/50 cases (54%) (p = 0.006). Notably, the GIA-CB offered the primary differential in the top 3 differential diagnoses in 45/50 cases (90%) versus g-CB with 37/50 cases (74%) (p = 0.022) and always with appropriate explanations. The median response time was 29.8 s for GIA-CB and 15.7 s for g-CB, and the mean cost per case was $0.15 and $0.02, respectively. Conclusions: The GIA-CB not only provided an accurate diagnosis for gastrointestinal pathologies, but also direct access to source documents, providing insight into the decision-making process, a step towards trustworthy and explainable AI. Integrating context-specific data into AI models can support evidence-based clinical decision-making. Relevance statement: A context-aware GPT-4 chatbot demonstrates high accuracy in providing differential diagnoses based on imaging descriptions, surpassing the generic GPT-4. It provided formulated rationale and source excerpts supporting the diagnoses, thus enhancing trustworthy decision-support. Key points: • Knowledge retrieval enhances differential diagnoses in a gastrointestinal imaging-aware chatbot (GIA-CB). • GIA-CB outperformed the generic counterpart, providing formulated rationale and source excerpts. • GIA-CB has the potential to pave the way for AI-assisted decision support systems. Graphical Abstract:

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41747-024-00457-x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [1]Alexander R Waite S Bruno MA Mandating limits on workload, duty, and speed in radiology Radiology 2022 304 274 282 10.1148/radiol.212631 35699581 PMC9340237 · DOI
  2. [2]Cartwright SL Knudson MP Evaluation of acute abdominal pain in adults Am Fam Physician 2008 77 971 978 18441863
  3. [3]Kamin RA Nowicki TA Courtney DS Powers RD Pearls and pitfalls in the emergency department evaluation of abdominal pain Emerg Med Clin North Am 2003 21 61–72 vi 10.1016/s0733-8627(02)00080-9 12630731 · DOI
  4. [4]Sabo CM Grad S Dumitrascu DL Chronic abdominal pain in general practice Dig Dis 2021 39 606 614 10.1159/000515433 33631744 · DOI
  5. [5]Caraiani C Yi D Petresc B Dietrich C Indications for abdominal imaging: when and what to choose? J Ultrason 2020 20 e43 e54 10.15557/JoU.2020.0008 32320166 PMC7266076 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Scheirey CD Fowler KJ Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging: ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Nonlocalized Abdominal Pain J Am Coll Radiol 2018 15 S217 S231 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.010 30392591 · DOI
  7. [7]Hachimi-Idrissi S Coffey F Hautz WE Approaching acute pain in emergency settings: European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) guidelines-part 1: assessment Intern Emerg Med 2020 15 1125 1139 10.1007/s11739-020-02477-y 32930965 · DOI
  8. [8]Katabathina VS Khanna L Surabhi VR Morphomolecular classification update on hepatocellular adenoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma Radiographics 2022 42 1338 1357 10.1148/rg.210206 35776676 · DOI
  9. [9]Zaid M, Elganainy D, Dogra P, et al (2020) Imaging-based subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma exhibit differential growth and metabolic patterns in the pre-diagnostic period: implications for early detection. Front Oncol 10:596931. 10.3389/fonc.2020.596931 PMC7738633 33344245 · DOI
  10. [12]Bhayana R Krishna S Bleakney RR Performance of ChatGPT on a radiology board-style examination: insights into current strengths and limitations Radiology 2023 307 e230582 10.1148/radiol.230582 37191485 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [13]Elkassem AA Smith AD Potential use cases for ChatGPT in radiology reporting AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023 221 373 376 10.2214/AJR.23.29198 37095665 · DOI
  12. [14]Srivastav S, Chandrakar R, Gupta S, et al. ChatGPT in radiology: the advantages and limitations of artificial intelligence for medical imaging diagnosis. Cureus 15:e41435. 10.7759/cureus.41435 PMC10404120 37546142 · DOI
  13. [16]Russe MF Fink A Ngo H Performance of ChatGPT, human radiologists, and context-aware ChatGPT in identifying AO codes from radiology reports Sci Rep 2023 13 14215 10.1038/s41598-023-41512-8 37648742 PMC10468502 · DOI
  14. [17]Rau A Rau S Zöller D A context-based chatbot surpasses radiologists and generic ChatGPT in following the ACR appropriateness guidelines Radiology 2023 308 e230970 10.1148/radiol.230970 37489981 · DOI
  15. [18]Liu Z, Yu X, Zhang L et al (2023) DeID-GPT: zero-shot medical text de-identification by GPT-4. arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11032 · DOI
  16. [19]Lewis P, Perez E, Piktus A, et al (2020) Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. Curran Associates, Inc., pp 9459–9474
  17. [20]Palatucci M, Pomerleau D, Hinton G, Mitchell TM (2009) Zero-shot learning with semantic output codes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, pp 1410–1418
  18. [23](2018) RadioGraphics top 10 Reading List gastrointestinal. In: RadioGraphics. https://pubs.rsna.org/page/radiographics/rgteam/top10_gastrointestinal?doi=10.1148%2Fradiographics&publicationCode=radiographics. Accessed 13 Nov 2023 · DOI
  19. [26]Brady AP Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging 2016 8 171 182 10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1 27928712 PMC5265198 · DOI
  20. [27]Kim YW Mansfield LT Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014 202 465 470 10.2214/AJR.13.11493 24555582 · DOI
  21. [29]Shen Y Heacock L Elias J ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords Radiology 2023 307 e230163 10.1148/radiol.230163 36700838 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [32]Ueda D Mitsuyama Y Takita H Diagnostic performance of ChatGPT from patient history and imaging findings on the Diagnosis Please quizzes Radiology 2023 308 e231040 10.1148/radiol.231040 37462501 · DOI
  23. [33]Hamilton W, Bajaj P, Zitnik M, et al (2018) Embedding logical queries on knowledge graphs. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. Curran Associates, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rau, S., Rau, A., Nattenmüller, J., Fink, A., Bamberg, F., Reisert, M., & Russe, M. F.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Rau, Stephan
Venue
European Radiology Experimental
Published
2024-05-17
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
60-60
ISSN
2509-9280 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4397021297
Cited by
33
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 4
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Radiology Experimental (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUBLISSO (German National Library of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
retrieval-augmented generation, GPT-4, chatbots, differential diagnosis, gastrointestinal imaging, abdominal pathology, knowledge retrieval, LlamaIndex, zero-shot learning, explainable AI, clinical decision support, radiology, trustworthiness, source documents, magnetic resonance imaging, CT, fluoroscopy, LLM hallucination, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Proof of Concept Study, Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, Differential, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review