Scholarlink

<p>The reliability of general-purpose multimodal large language models (LLMs) in oral histopathologic image interpretation remains incompletely characterized. To evaluate abstraction-level diagnostic competence, grading reliability, and structural error patterns of ChatGPT-5.2 in oral epithelial dysplasia histopathology. In this retrospective diagnostic accuracy study, ChatGPT-5.2 analyzed 200 digitized H&amp;E-stained oral mucosal images (100 OPMD; 100 normal) in a zero-shot setting. Model outputs were compared with consensus diagnoses from three expert oral pathologists. The primary outcome was abstraction-level agreement (κ) across predefined WHO-aligned morphologic domains. Secondary outcomes included binary diagnostic accuracy, grade-stratified sensitivity, grading discordance, feature-level error profiling, inter-run stability, and modeled clinical utility. Agreement declined monotonically across morphologic abstraction domains (κ: 0.85 coarse morphology; 0.42 architectural; 0.09 high-risk cytologic; P[ordered] ≈ 1.000). Binary classification achieved a sensitivity 87.0% (95% CI 79.0–92.6) and a specificity 89.0% (95% CI 81.4–94.0). All severe dysplasia cases were detected (100%), with false negatives confined to non-severe lesions. Grading agreement was fair (weighted κ = 0.36) with predominant under-grading. Feature-level degradation was omission-dominant and concentrated within high-risk cytologic descriptors. Binary outputs demonstrated high inter-run stability (Fleiss’ κ = 0.82). ChatGPT-5.2 demonstrated stable binary discrimination for OPMD detection but showed abstraction-dependent degradation in architectural and cytologic feature recognition central to dysplasia grading. While performance may support assistive or triage-oriented applications, grading variability and omission of high-risk cytologic criteria indicate that expert oversight remains essential. Further domain-specific validation is required before clinical integration.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Abstraction-dependent diagnostic performance of a multimodal foundation model in oral epithelial dysplasia

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月11日

查看全文
  • Fatma E. A. Hassanein,
  • Muhammad Talha Hassan,
  • Majid Jahngir,
  • Mariya Javed,
  • Asmaa Abou-Bakr

摘要

The reliability of general-purpose multimodal large language models (LLMs) in oral histopathologic image interpretation remains incompletely characterized. To evaluate abstraction-level diagnostic competence, grading reliability, and structural error patterns of ChatGPT-5.2 in oral epithelial dysplasia histopathology. In this retrospective diagnostic accuracy study, ChatGPT-5.2 analyzed 200 digitized H&E-stained oral mucosal images (100 OPMD; 100 normal) in a zero-shot setting. Model outputs were compared with consensus diagnoses from three expert oral pathologists. The primary outcome was abstraction-level agreement (κ) across predefined WHO-aligned morphologic domains. Secondary outcomes included binary diagnostic accuracy, grade-stratified sensitivity, grading discordance, feature-level error profiling, inter-run stability, and modeled clinical utility. Agreement declined monotonically across morphologic abstraction domains (κ: 0.85 coarse morphology; 0.42 architectural; 0.09 high-risk cytologic; P[ordered] ≈ 1.000). Binary classification achieved a sensitivity 87.0% (95% CI 79.0–92.6) and a specificity 89.0% (95% CI 81.4–94.0). All severe dysplasia cases were detected (100%), with false negatives confined to non-severe lesions. Grading agreement was fair (weighted κ = 0.36) with predominant under-grading. Feature-level degradation was omission-dominant and concentrated within high-risk cytologic descriptors. Binary outputs demonstrated high inter-run stability (Fleiss’ κ = 0.82). ChatGPT-5.2 demonstrated stable binary discrimination for OPMD detection but showed abstraction-dependent degradation in architectural and cytologic feature recognition central to dysplasia grading. While performance may support assistive or triage-oriented applications, grading variability and omission of high-risk cytologic criteria indicate that expert oversight remains essential. Further domain-specific validation is required before clinical integration.