Hidden Flaws Behind Expert-Level Accuracy of GPT-4 Vision in Medicine.

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, Alex Chen, Josef A Brejt, Michael F Chiang,Yifan Peng,Zhiyong Lu

ArXiv(2024)

Cited 0|Views40
No score
Abstract
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.
More
Translated text
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined