ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Assessing the Utility of ChatGPT Throughout the Entire Clinical Workflow.
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, 141 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceLarge language model (LLM) artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots direct the power of large training datasets towards successive, related tasks, as opposed to single-ask tasks, for which AI already achieves impressive performance. The capacity of LLMs to assist in the full scope of iterative clinical reasoning via successive prompting, in effect acting as virtual physicians, has not yet been evaluated.
objectiveTo evaluate ChatGPT's capacity for ongoing clinical decision support via its performance on standardized clinical vignettes.
designWe inputted all 36 published clinical vignettes from the Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) Clinical Manual into ChatGPT and compared accuracy on differential diagnoses, diagnostic testing, final diagnosis, and management based on patient age, gender, and case acuity.
settingChatGPT, a publicly available LLM.
participantsClinical vignettes featured hypothetical patients with a variety of age and gender identities, and a range of Emergency Severity Indices (ESIs) based on initial clinical presentation. EXPOSURES: MSD Clinical Manual vignettes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We measured the proportion of correct responses to the questions posed within the clinical vignettes tested.
resultsChatGPT achieved 71.7% (95% CI, 69.3% to 74.1%) accuracy overall across all 36 clinical vignettes. The LLM demonstrated the highest performance in making a final diagnosis with an accuracy of 76.9% (95% CI, 67.8% to 86.1%), and the lowest performance in generating an initial differential diagnosis with an accuracy of 60.3% (95% CI, 54.2% to 66.6%). Compared to answering questions about general medical knowledge, ChatGPT demonstrated inferior performance on differential diagnosis (β=-15.8%, p<0.001) and clinical management (β=-7.4%, p=0.02) type questions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ChatGPT achieves impressive accuracy in clinical decision making, with particular strengths emerging as it has more clinical information at its disposal.
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.