{"title":"Unveiling the clinical incapabilities: a benchmarking study of GPT-4V(ision) for ophthalmic multimodal image analysis.","authors":"Pusheng Xu, Xiaolan Chen, Ziwei Zhao, Danli Shi","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2023-325054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the capabilities and incapabilities of a GPT-4V(ision)-based chatbot in interpreting ocular multimodal images.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a digital ophthalmologist app using GPT-4V and evaluated its performance with a dataset (60 images, 60 ophthalmic conditions, 6 modalities) that included slit-lamp, scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography of the posterior pole (FPP), optical coherence tomography, fundus fluorescein angiography and ocular ultrasound images. The chatbot was tested with ten open-ended questions per image, covering examination identification, lesion detection, diagnosis and decision support. The responses were manually assessed for accuracy, usability, safety and diagnosis repeatability. Auto-evaluation was performed using sentence similarity and GPT-4-based auto-evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 600 responses, 30.6% were accurate, 21.5% were highly usable and 55.6% were deemed as no harm. GPT-4V performed best with slit-lamp images, with 42.0%, 38.5% and 68.5% of the responses being accurate, highly usable and no harm, respectively. However, its performance was weaker in FPP images, with only 13.7%, 3.7% and 38.5% in the same categories. GPT-4V correctly identified 95.6% of the imaging modalities and showed varying accuracies in lesion identification (25.6%), diagnosis (16.1%) and decision support (24.0%). The overall repeatability of GPT-4V in diagnosing ocular images was 63.3% (38/60). The overall sentence similarity between responses generated by GPT-4V and human answers is 55.5%, with Spearman correlations of 0.569 for accuracy and 0.576 for usability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4V currently is not yet suitable for clinical decision-making in ophthalmology. Our study serves as a benchmark for enhancing ophthalmic multimodal models.</p>","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-325054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the capabilities and incapabilities of a GPT-4V(ision)-based chatbot in interpreting ocular multimodal images.
Methods: We developed a digital ophthalmologist app using GPT-4V and evaluated its performance with a dataset (60 images, 60 ophthalmic conditions, 6 modalities) that included slit-lamp, scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography of the posterior pole (FPP), optical coherence tomography, fundus fluorescein angiography and ocular ultrasound images. The chatbot was tested with ten open-ended questions per image, covering examination identification, lesion detection, diagnosis and decision support. The responses were manually assessed for accuracy, usability, safety and diagnosis repeatability. Auto-evaluation was performed using sentence similarity and GPT-4-based auto-evaluation.
Results: Out of 600 responses, 30.6% were accurate, 21.5% were highly usable and 55.6% were deemed as no harm. GPT-4V performed best with slit-lamp images, with 42.0%, 38.5% and 68.5% of the responses being accurate, highly usable and no harm, respectively. However, its performance was weaker in FPP images, with only 13.7%, 3.7% and 38.5% in the same categories. GPT-4V correctly identified 95.6% of the imaging modalities and showed varying accuracies in lesion identification (25.6%), diagnosis (16.1%) and decision support (24.0%). The overall repeatability of GPT-4V in diagnosing ocular images was 63.3% (38/60). The overall sentence similarity between responses generated by GPT-4V and human answers is 55.5%, with Spearman correlations of 0.569 for accuracy and 0.576 for usability.
Conclusion: GPT-4V currently is not yet suitable for clinical decision-making in ophthalmology. Our study serves as a benchmark for enhancing ophthalmic multimodal models.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.