Abstract
Background Publicly available artificial intelligence (AI) Visual Language Models (VLMs) are constantly improving. The advent of vision capabilities on these models could enhance workflows in radiology. Evaluating their performance in radiological image interpretation is vital to their potential integration into practice.
Aim This study aims to evaluate the proficiency and consistency of the publicly available VLMs, Claude and GPT, across multiple iterations in basic image interpretation tasks.
Method Subsets from publicly available datasets, ROCOv2 and MURAv1.1, were used to evaluate 6 VLMs. A system prompt and image were inputted into each model thrice. The outputs were compared to the dataset captions to evaluate each model’s accuracy in recognising the modality, anatomy, and detecting fractures on radiographs. The consistency of the output across iterations was also analysed.
Results Evaluation of the ROCOv2 dataset showed high accuracy in modality recognition, with some models achieving 100%. Anatomical recognition ranged between 61% and 85% accuracy across all models tested. On the MURAv1.1 dataset, Claude-3.5-Sonnet had the highest anatomical recognition with 57% accuracy, while GPT-4o had the best fracture detection with 62% accuracy. Claude-3.5-Sonnet was the most consistent model, with 83% and 92% consistency in anatomy and fracture detection, respectively.
Conclusion Given Claude and GPT’s current accuracy and reliability, integration of these models into clinical settings is not yet feasible. This study highlights the need for ongoing development and establishment of standardised testing techniques to ensure these models achieve reliable performance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Update to the manuscript and graphs.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.