Evaluating the Accuracy and Diagnostic Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models in Interpreting Neuroradiology Cases From RadioGraphics

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and reasoning capabilities of large multimodal language models compared with those of neuroradiology subspecialty-trained radiologists in neuroradiology case interpretation. Materials and Methods: This experimental study used custom-made 401 radiologic quizzes derived from articles published in RadioGraphics covering neuroradiology and head and neck topics (October 2020 to February 2024). We prompted the GPT-4 Turbo with Vision (GPT-4V), GPT-4 Omni, Gemini Flash, and Claude models to provide the top three differential diagnoses with a rationale and describe examination characteristics such as imaging modality, sequence, use of contrast, image plane, and body part. The temperature was adjusted to 0 and 1 (T1). Two neuroradiologists answered the same questions. The accuracies of the large language models (LLMs) and the neuroradiologists were compared using generalized estimating equations. Three neuroradiologists assessed the rationale provided by the LLMs for their differential diagnoses using four-point scales, separately for specific lesion locations and imaging findings, and evaluated the presence of hallucinations and the overall acceptability of the responses. Results: Top-3 accuracy (i.e., correct answers present among top-3 differential diagnoses) of LLMs ranged from 29.9% (120 of 401) to 49.4% (198 of 401, obtained with GPT-4V in the T1 setting), while radiologists achieved 80.3% (322 of 401) and 68.3% (274 of 401), respectively (P < 0.001). Regarding the rationale for differential diagnoses, GPT-4V (T1) accurately identified both the specific lesion location and imaging findings in 30.7% (123 of 401) and 12.9% (16 of 124) of cases without textual clinical history. Hallucinations occurred in 4.5% (18 of 401), and only 29.4% (118 of 401) of the LLM-generated analyses were deemed acceptable. GPT-4V (T1) demonstrated high accuracy in identifying the imaging modality (97.4% [800 of 821]) and scanned body parts (92.2% [756 of 820]). Conclusion: LLMs remarkably underperformed compared with neuroradiologists and showed unsatisfactory reasoning for their differential diagnoses, with performance declining further in cases without textual input of clinical history. These findings highlight the limitations of current multimodal LLMs in neuroradiological interpretation and their reliance on text input.