It's multiple things. It never shows the subscapularis in the way that people actually look the tendon. It hyper fixates on the axial when I find the sagittal much more useful for subscapularis.
Figure 7. There's an arrow pointing "to the acromial undersurface". The arrow is not pointed to that location.
Figure 5. "thin bursal fluid". This is within physiologic variation, but is calling bursitis.
It keeps bringing up irrelevant normal things like the shape of the coracromipal arch, I assume because lots of websites have information about that as a patient focused possible cause for rotator cuff impingement.
I am reminded of the recent Stanford MIRAGE study which found that LLMs will happily hallucinate answers about medical images if the medical images are omitted.
It's multiple things. It never shows the subscapularis in the way that people actually look the tendon. It hyper fixates on the axial when I find the sagittal much more useful for subscapularis.
Figure 7. There's an arrow pointing "to the acromial undersurface". The arrow is not pointed to that location.
Figure 5. "thin bursal fluid". This is within physiologic variation, but is calling bursitis.
It keeps bringing up irrelevant normal things like the shape of the coracromipal arch, I assume because lots of websites have information about that as a patient focused possible cause for rotator cuff impingement.
I am reminded of the recent Stanford MIRAGE study which found that LLMs will happily hallucinate answers about medical images if the medical images are omitted.
https://arxiv.org/html/2603.21687v2