Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: In this preliminary study, we aimed to evaluate the potential of the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) series for generating radiology reports from concise imaging findings and compare its performance with radiologist-generated reports. METHODS: This retrospective study involved 28 patients who underwent computed tomography (CT) scans and had a diagnosed disease with typical imaging findings. Radiology reports were generated using GPT-2, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 based on the patient's age, gender, disease site, and imaging findings. We calculated the top-1, top-5 accuracy, and mean average precision (MAP) of differential diagnoses for GPT-2, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and radiologists. Two board-certified radiologists evaluated the grammar and readability, image findings, impression, differential diagnosis, and overall quality of all reports using a 4-point scale. RESULTS: Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies for the different diagnoses were highest for radiologists, followed by GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and GPT-2, in that order (Top-1: 1.00, 0.54, 0.54, and 0.21, respectively; Top-5: 1.00, 0.96, 0.89, and 0.54, respectively). There were no significant differences in qualitative scores about grammar and readability, image findings, and overall quality between radiologists and GPT-3.5 or GPT-4 (p > 0.05). However, qualitative scores of the GPT series in impression and differential diagnosis scores were significantly lower than those of radiologists (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary study suggests that GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 have the possibility to generate radiology reports with high readability and reasonable image findings from very short keywords; however, concerns persist regarding the accuracy of impressions and differential diagnoses, thereby requiring verification by radiologists.
Nakaura et al. (Fri,) studied this question.