Diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4 on common clinical scenarios and challenging cases

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Geoffrey W. Rutledge
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4 on common clinical scenarios and challenging cases","authors":"Geoffrey W. Rutledge","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Large language models (LLMs) have a high diagnostic accuracy when they evaluate previously published clinical cases.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We compared the accuracy of GPT-4's differential diagnoses for previously unpublished challenging case scenarios with the diagnostic accuracy for previously published cases.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For a set of previously unpublished challenging clinical cases, GPT-4 achieved 61.1% correct in its top 6 diagnoses versus the previously reported 49.1% for physicians. For a set of 45 clinical vignettes of more common clinical scenarios, GPT-4 included the correct diagnosis in its top 3 diagnoses 100% of the time versus the previously reported 84.3% for physicians.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>GPT-4 performs at a level at least as good as, if not better than, that of experienced physicians on highly challenging cases in internal medicine. The extraordinary performance of GPT-4 on diagnosing common clinical scenarios could be explained in part by the fact that these cases were previously published and may have been included in the training dataset for this LLM.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.10438","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Large language models (LLMs) have a high diagnostic accuracy when they evaluate previously published clinical cases.

Methods

We compared the accuracy of GPT-4's differential diagnoses for previously unpublished challenging case scenarios with the diagnostic accuracy for previously published cases.

Results

For a set of previously unpublished challenging clinical cases, GPT-4 achieved 61.1% correct in its top 6 diagnoses versus the previously reported 49.1% for physicians. For a set of 45 clinical vignettes of more common clinical scenarios, GPT-4 included the correct diagnosis in its top 3 diagnoses 100% of the time versus the previously reported 84.3% for physicians.

Conclusions

GPT-4 performs at a level at least as good as, if not better than, that of experienced physicians on highly challenging cases in internal medicine. The extraordinary performance of GPT-4 on diagnosing common clinical scenarios could be explained in part by the fact that these cases were previously published and may have been included in the training dataset for this LLM.

GPT-4 对常见临床情况和疑难病例的诊断准确性
引言 大型语言模型(LLM)在评估以前发表的临床病例时具有很高的诊断准确性。 方法 我们比较了 GPT-4 对以前未发表的高难度病例的鉴别诊断准确率和对以前已发表病例的诊断准确率。 结果 对于一组之前未发表的具有挑战性的临床病例,GPT-4 的前 6 项诊断正确率为 61.1%,而之前报道的医生的正确率为 49.1%。在一组 45 个更常见的临床案例中,GPT-4 在前 3 个诊断中的正确率为 100%,而之前报道的医生的正确率为 84.3%。 结论 GPT-4 在内科高难度病例上的表现至少与经验丰富的医生相当,甚至更好。GPT-4 在诊断常见临床病例时表现非凡,部分原因可能是这些病例之前已经发表过,并且可能已经包含在本 LLM 的训练数据集中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信