GPT-4 医学视觉专家级精确度背后的隐患。

ArXiv Pub Date : 2024-08-31
Qiao Jin, Fangyuan Chen, Yiliang Zhou, Ziyang Xu, Justin M Cheung, Robert Chen, Ronald M Summers, Justin F Rousseau, Peiyun Ni, Marc J Landsman, Sally L Baxter, Subhi J Al'Aref, Yijia Li, Alexander Chen, Josef A Brejt, Michael F Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu
{"title":"GPT-4 医学视觉专家级精确度背后的隐患。","authors":"Qiao Jin, Fangyuan Chen, Yiliang Zhou, Ziyang Xu, Justin M Cheung, Robert Chen, Ronald M Summers, Justin F Rousseau, Peiyun Ni, Marc J Landsman, Sally L Baxter, Subhi J Al'Aref, Yijia Li, Alexander Chen, Josef A Brejt, Michael F Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent studies indicate that Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 with Vision (GPT-4V) outperforms human physicians in medical challenge tasks. However, these evaluations primarily focused on the accuracy of multi-choice questions alone. Our study extends the current scope by conducting a comprehensive analysis of GPT-4V's rationales of image comprehension, recall of medical knowledge, and step-by-step multimodal reasoning when solving <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> (NEJM) Image Challenges - an imaging quiz designed to test the knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of medical professionals. Evaluation results confirmed that GPT-4V performs comparatively to human physicians regarding multi-choice accuracy (81.6% vs. 77.8%). GPT-4V also performs well in cases where physicians incorrectly answer, with over 78% accuracy. However, we discovered that GPT-4V frequently presents flawed rationales in cases where it makes the correct final choices (35.5%), most prominent in image comprehension (27.2%). Regardless of GPT-4V's high accuracy in multi-choice questions, our findings emphasize the necessity for further in-depth evaluations of its rationales before integrating such multimodal AI models into clinical workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":93888,"journal":{"name":"ArXiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10896362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hidden Flaws Behind Expert-Level Accuracy of Multimodal GPT-4 Vision in Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Qiao Jin, Fangyuan Chen, Yiliang Zhou, Ziyang Xu, Justin M Cheung, Robert Chen, Ronald M Summers, Justin F Rousseau, Peiyun Ni, Marc J Landsman, Sally L Baxter, Subhi J Al'Aref, Yijia Li, Alexander Chen, Josef A Brejt, Michael F Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent studies indicate that Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 with Vision (GPT-4V) outperforms human physicians in medical challenge tasks. However, these evaluations primarily focused on the accuracy of multi-choice questions alone. Our study extends the current scope by conducting a comprehensive analysis of GPT-4V's rationales of image comprehension, recall of medical knowledge, and step-by-step multimodal reasoning when solving <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> (NEJM) Image Challenges - an imaging quiz designed to test the knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of medical professionals. Evaluation results confirmed that GPT-4V performs comparatively to human physicians regarding multi-choice accuracy (81.6% vs. 77.8%). GPT-4V also performs well in cases where physicians incorrectly answer, with over 78% accuracy. However, we discovered that GPT-4V frequently presents flawed rationales in cases where it makes the correct final choices (35.5%), most prominent in image comprehension (27.2%). Regardless of GPT-4V's high accuracy in multi-choice questions, our findings emphasize the necessity for further in-depth evaluations of its rationales before integrating such multimodal AI models into clinical workflows.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ArXiv\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10896362/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ArXiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ArXiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的研究表明,带视觉的生成预训练变换器 4(GPT-4V)在医疗挑战任务中的表现优于人类医生。然而,这些评估主要集中在多选题的准确性上。我们的研究扩展了目前的研究范围,全面分析了 GPT-4V 在解决《新英格兰医学杂志》(NEJM)图像挑战时的图像理解、医学知识回忆和分步多模态推理能力。评估结果证实,GPT-4V 在多选准确率方面优于人类医生(88.0% 对 77.0%,P=0.034)。在医生回答错误的情况下,GPT-4V 也表现出色,准确率超过 80%。然而,我们发现 GPT-4V 在做出正确的最终选择(27.3%)时,经常会提出有缺陷的理由,这在图像理解方面最为突出(21.6%)。尽管 GPT-4V 在多选题中的准确率很高,但我们的发现强调,在将此类模型整合到临床工作流程之前,有必要进一步深入评估其合理性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hidden Flaws Behind Expert-Level Accuracy of Multimodal GPT-4 Vision in Medicine.

Recent studies indicate that Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 with Vision (GPT-4V) outperforms human physicians in medical challenge tasks. However, these evaluations primarily focused on the accuracy of multi-choice questions alone. Our study extends the current scope by conducting a comprehensive analysis of GPT-4V's rationales of image comprehension, recall of medical knowledge, and step-by-step multimodal reasoning when solving New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Image Challenges - an imaging quiz designed to test the knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of medical professionals. Evaluation results confirmed that GPT-4V performs comparatively to human physicians regarding multi-choice accuracy (81.6% vs. 77.8%). GPT-4V also performs well in cases where physicians incorrectly answer, with over 78% accuracy. However, we discovered that GPT-4V frequently presents flawed rationales in cases where it makes the correct final choices (35.5%), most prominent in image comprehension (27.2%). Regardless of GPT-4V's high accuracy in multi-choice questions, our findings emphasize the necessity for further in-depth evaluations of its rationales before integrating such multimodal AI models into clinical workflows.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dynamical Mechanisms for Coordinating Long-term Working Memory Based on the Precision of Spike Timing in Cortical Neurons. Smart strategies to navigate turbulent odor plumes reorienting to local wind. Hybrid Dynamical Simulation Reveals Apparent Stiffening of Flexible Protein Lattices Driving Membrane Bending. Operator-Informed Gaussian Processes for Complex Helmholtz Wavefields: From Synthetic Benchmarks to In Vivo Brain Elastography. IQ-JEPA: A Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture with a Hermitian Vision Transformer for Sound Speed and Attenuation Estimation from Ultrasound IQ Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1