Congress:
ECR25
Poster Number:
C-11239
Type:
Poster: EPOS Radiologist (scientific)
Authorblock:
S. H. Kim, S. Schramm, L. C. Adams, R. Braren, K. Bressem, M. Keicher, C. Zimmer, D. M. Hedderich, B. Wiestler; München/DE
Disclosures:
Su Hwan Kim:
Nothing to disclose
Severin Schramm:
Nothing to disclose
Lisa C. Adams:
Nothing to disclose
Rickmer Braren:
Nothing to disclose
Keno Bressem:
Nothing to disclose
Matthias Keicher:
Nothing to disclose
Claus Zimmer:
Nothing to disclose
Dennis M Hedderich:
Nothing to disclose
Benedikt Wiestler:
Nothing to disclose
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, CT, MR, Technology assessment, Pathology
[1] Sonoda, Y. et al. Diagnostic performances of GPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini 1.5 Pro in “Diagnosis Please” cases. Jpn J Radiol 1–5 (2024) doi:10.1007/S11604-024-01619-Y.
[2] Schramm, S. et al. Impact of Multimodal Prompt Elements on Diagnostic Performance of GPT-4(V) in Challenging Brain MRI Cases. medRxiv 2024.03.05.24303767 (2024) doi:10.1101/2024.03.05.24303767.
[3] Suh, P. S. et al. Comparing Diagnostic Accuracy of Radiologists versus GPT-4V and Gemini Pro Vision Using Image Inputs from Diagnosis Please Cases. Radiology 312, e240273 (2024).