ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
The Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy of the GPT-3 Artificial Intelligence Model.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in health care have been effective in many areas of medicine, but they are often trained for a single task using labeled data, making deployment and generalizability challenging. Whether a general-purpose AI language model can perform diagnosis and triage is unknown. Objective: Compare the general-purpose Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) AI model's diagnostic and triage performance to attending physicians and lay adults who use the Internet. Design: We compared the accuracy of GPT-3's diagnostic and triage ability for 48 validated case vignettes of both common (e.g., viral illness) and severe (e.g., heart attack) conditions to lay people and practicing physicians. Finally, we examined how well calibrated GPT-3's confidence was for diagnosis and triage. Setting and Participants: The GPT-3 model, a nationally representative sample of lay people, and practicing physicians. Exposure: Validated case vignettes (<60 words; <6 Main Outcomes and Measures: Correct diagnosis, correct triage. Results: Among all cases, GPT-3 replied with the correct diagnosis in its top 3 for 88% (95% CI, 75% to 94%) of cases, compared to 54% (95% CI, 53% to 55%) for lay individuals (p<0.001) and 96% (95% CI, 94% to 97%) for physicians (p=0.0354). GPT-3 triaged (71% correct; 95% CI, 57% to 82%) similarly to lay individuals (74%; 95% CI, 73% to 75%; p=0.73); both were significantly worse than physicians (91%; 95% CI, 89% to 93%; p<0.001). As measured by the Brier score, GPT-3 confidence in its top prediction was reasonably well-calibrated for diagnosis (Brier score = 0.18) and triage (Brier score = 0.22). Conclusions and Relevance: A general-purpose AI language model without any content-specific training could perform diagnosis at levels close to, but below physicians and better than lay individuals. The model was performed less well on triage, where its performance was closer to that of lay individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.