Claude 3 Opus and ChatGPT With GPT-4 in Dermoscopic Image Analysis for Melanoma Diagnosis: Comparative Performance Analysis.

Background: Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in medical fields, including dermatology. With the introduction of image analysis capabilities in LLMs, their application in dermatological diagnostics has garnered significant interest. These capabilities are enabled by the integration of computer vision techniques into the underlying architecture of LLMs.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of Claude 3 Opus and ChatGPT with GPT-4 in analyzing dermoscopic images for melanoma detection, providing insights into their strengths and limitations.

Methods: We randomly selected 100 histopathology-confirmed dermoscopic images (50 malignant, 50 benign) from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) archive using a computer-generated randomization process. The ISIC archive was chosen due to its comprehensive and well-annotated collection of dermoscopic images, ensuring a diverse and representative sample. Images were included if they were dermoscopic images of melanocytic lesions with histopathologically confirmed diagnoses. Each model was given the same prompt, instructing it to provide the top 3 differential diagnoses for each image, ranked by likelihood. Primary diagnosis accuracy, accuracy of the top 3 differential diagnoses, and malignancy discrimination ability were assessed. The McNemar test was chosen to compare the diagnostic performance of the 2 models, as it is suitable for analyzing paired nominal data.

Results: In the primary diagnosis, Claude 3 Opus achieved 54.9% sensitivity (95% CI 44.08%-65.37%), 57.14% specificity (95% CI 46.31%-67.46%), and 56% accuracy (95% CI 46.22%-65.42%), while ChatGPT demonstrated 56.86% sensitivity (95% CI 45.99%-67.21%), 38.78% specificity (95% CI 28.77%-49.59%), and 48% accuracy (95% CI 38.37%-57.75%). The McNemar test showed no significant difference between the 2 models (P=.17). For the top 3 differential diagnoses, Claude 3 Opus and ChatGPT included the correct diagnosis in 76% (95% CI 66.33%-83.77%) and 78% (95% CI 68.46%-85.45%) of cases, respectively. The McNemar test showed no significant difference (P=.56). In malignancy discrimination, Claude 3 Opus outperformed ChatGPT with 47.06% sensitivity, 81.63% specificity, and 64% accuracy, compared to 45.1%, 42.86%, and 44%, respectively. The McNemar test showed a significant difference (P<.001). Claude 3 Opus had an odds ratio of 3.951 (95% CI 1.685-9.263) in discriminating malignancy, while ChatGPT-4 had an odds ratio of 0.616 (95% CI 0.297-1.278).

Conclusions: Our study highlights the potential of LLMs in assisting dermatologists but also reveals their limitations. Both models made errors in diagnosing melanoma and benign lesions. These findings underscore the need for developing robust, transparent, and clinically validated AI models through collaborative efforts between AI researchers, dermatologists, and other health care professionals. While AI can provide valuable insights, it cannot yet replace the expertise of trained clinicians.