Retrospective study evaluates diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4o for brain CT scans in trauma patients, highlighting limitations.
Objective: Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4o have recently introduced real-time multimodal capabilities, including medical image interpretation. No prior studies have systematically assessed GPT-4o’s diagnostic accuracy for brain CT scans in trauma patients. We aimed to evaluate GPT-4o’s performance in identifying intracranial pathologies on brain CT images in this setting.Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included adult patients presenting with head trauma between January and June 2024. For each patient, four representative CT slices were selected by a board-certified radiologist, whose interpretations served as the reference standard. The selected images were analysed by GPT-4o. Model outputs were compared with the radiologist’s assessments, and diagnostic accuracy metrics were calculated.Results: A total of 54 patients were included. Observed pathologies comprised epidural hematoma (22.2%), subdural hematoma (44.4%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (57.4%), parenchymal hemorrhage/contusion (29.6%), pneumocephalus (13.0%), and intraventricular hemorrhage (3.7%). GPT-4o correctly identified all present pathologies in 7.4% of cases and at least one pathology in 24.1%. In 68.5% of cases, no pathology was correctly detected. Sensitivity was low across all categories: epidural hematoma 8.3% (AUC 0.506), subdural hematoma 25.0% (AUC 0.508), subarachnoid hemorrhage 3.2% (AUC 0.451), parenchymal hemorrhage/contusion 50.0% (AUC 0.592), and pneumocephalus 14.3% (AUC 0.571). GPT-4o also generated false positives across multiple pathology categories.Conclusions: GPT-4o demonstrated insufficient diagnostic accuracy for the independent interpretation of brain CT scans in trauma patients, with low sensitivity and frequent misclassification. These findings underscore the necessity for task-specific training and rigorous validation in larger, multicentre studies prior to clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Öztürk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: