Can large language models perform clinical anamnesis? Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in diagnostic reasoning through case-based questioning in oral and maxillofacial disorders

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Birkan Eyup Yilmaz , Furkan Ozbey , Busra Nur Gokkurt Yilmaz , Hasan Akpinar
{"title":"Can large language models perform clinical anamnesis? Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in diagnostic reasoning through case-based questioning in oral and maxillofacial disorders","authors":"Birkan Eyup Yilmaz ,&nbsp;Furkan Ozbey ,&nbsp;Busra Nur Gokkurt Yilmaz ,&nbsp;Hasan Akpinar","doi":"10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can emulate the clinical anamnesis process and diagnostic reasoning of oral and maxillofacial surgeons.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Twenty-five real clinical cases from five diagnostic categories maxillary sinus diseases, periapical pathologies, orofacial pain disorders and neuropathic pain syndromes, odontogenic cysts and tumors, and temporomandibular joint disorders were simulated. Three LLMs (ChatGPT 4o, Claude 4, and Gemini 2.5) were each provided only the patient’s chief complaint and instructed to ask up to ten sequential questions to reach a diagnosis. One independent evaluators scored model performances on a 100 point scale, deducting 10 points for each additional question asked. Statistical comparisons were conducted using Kruskal–Wallis and Bonferroni post-hoc tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No statistically significant difference was found among the models (<em>p</em> = 0.431). Gemini achieved the highest mean diagnostic score (43.6 ± 40.71), followed by ChatGPT-4o (37.2 ± 36.8) and Claude (31.6 ± 33.0). Diagnostic accuracy was highest in moderately difficult cases (<em>p</em> = 0.021) and markedly decreased in difficult ones (<em>p</em> = 0.016).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>LLMs demonstrated the ability to perform structured anamnesis and reach clinically meaningful diagnostic conclusions using limited information. Although no significant difference was observed among the models, Gemini achieved the highest overall mean score. These findings indicate that LLMs hold potential as complementary tools for diagnostic reasoning and as simulation-based educational resources in oral and maxillofacial surgery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55993,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"127 2","pages":"Article 102644"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246878552500429X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can emulate the clinical anamnesis process and diagnostic reasoning of oral and maxillofacial surgeons.

Materials and methods

Twenty-five real clinical cases from five diagnostic categories maxillary sinus diseases, periapical pathologies, orofacial pain disorders and neuropathic pain syndromes, odontogenic cysts and tumors, and temporomandibular joint disorders were simulated. Three LLMs (ChatGPT 4o, Claude 4, and Gemini 2.5) were each provided only the patient’s chief complaint and instructed to ask up to ten sequential questions to reach a diagnosis. One independent evaluators scored model performances on a 100 point scale, deducting 10 points for each additional question asked. Statistical comparisons were conducted using Kruskal–Wallis and Bonferroni post-hoc tests.

Results

No statistically significant difference was found among the models (p = 0.431). Gemini achieved the highest mean diagnostic score (43.6 ± 40.71), followed by ChatGPT-4o (37.2 ± 36.8) and Claude (31.6 ± 33.0). Diagnostic accuracy was highest in moderately difficult cases (p = 0.021) and markedly decreased in difficult ones (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

LLMs demonstrated the ability to perform structured anamnesis and reach clinically meaningful diagnostic conclusions using limited information. Although no significant difference was observed among the models, Gemini achieved the highest overall mean score. These findings indicate that LLMs hold potential as complementary tools for diagnostic reasoning and as simulation-based educational resources in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
大型语言模型能进行临床记忆吗?chatgpt - 40、Claude和Gemini在口腔颌面疾病病例提问诊断推理中的比较评价。
前言:本研究旨在评估大型语言模型(LLMs)是否可以模拟口腔颌面外科医生的临床记忆过程和诊断推理。材料与方法:模拟上颌窦疾病、根尖周围病变、口面疼痛和神经性疼痛综合征、牙源性囊肿和肿瘤、颞下颌关节疾病5个诊断类别25例真实临床病例。三位法学硕士(ChatGPT 40, Claude 4和Gemini 2.5)每人只提供患者的主诉,并指示他们问多达10个连续的问题以得出诊断。一位独立评估师以100分制对模型的表现进行评分,每增加一个问题就扣除10分。采用Kruskal-Wallis和Bonferroni事后检验进行统计比较。结果:各模型间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.431)。Gemini的平均诊断评分最高(43.6±40.71),其次是chatgpt - 40(37.2±36.8)和Claude(31.6±33.0)。中困难病例诊断准确率最高(p = 0.021),困难病例诊断准确率显著降低(p = 0.016)。结论:大型语言模型显示了使用有限信息进行结构化记忆和得出有临床意义的诊断结论的能力。虽然在模型之间没有观察到显著差异,但双子座获得了最高的总体平均分。这些发现表明llm具有作为诊断推理的补充工具和作为口腔颌面外科模拟教育资源的潜力。
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
Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Surgery, Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
23 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书