Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37606976›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Assessing the Utility of ChatGPT Throughout the Entire Clinical Workflow: Development and Usability Study.

Arya Rao, Michael Pang, John Kim, Meghana Kamineni, Winston Lie, Anoop K Prasad, Adam Landman, Keith Dreyer, Marc D Succi

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 249 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
249citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

249 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The role of information systems in emergency department decision-making-a literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

189 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Arya Rao *Medically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3007-4812
Michael Pang *Medically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5619-9344
John KimMedically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4252-5916
Meghana KamineniMedically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6698-5151
Winston LieMedically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-0939-7449
Anoop K PrasadMedically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-6062
Adam LandmanHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2166-0521
Keith DreyerHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1207-6443
Marc D SucciMedically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1518-3984

Funding

Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM144273 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI David Shumway Jones, Jacqueline A. Lees · 2022 to 2026
$14.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM144273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence chatbots direct the power of large training data sets toward successive, related tasks as opposed to single-ask tasks, for which artificial intelligence 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 artificial physicians, has not yet been evaluated.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's capacity for ongoing clinical decision support via its performance on standardized clinical vignettes.

methodsWe inputted all 36 published clinical vignettes from the Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) Clinical Manual into ChatGPT and compared its accuracy on differential diagnoses, diagnostic testing, final diagnosis, and management based on patient age, gender, and case acuity. Accuracy was measured by the proportion of correct responses to the questions posed within the clinical vignettes tested, as calculated by human scorers. We further conducted linear regression to assess the contributing factors toward ChatGPT's performance on clinical tasks.

resultsChatGPT achieved an overall accuracy of 71.7% (95% CI 69.3%-74.1%) 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%-86.1%) and the lowest performance in generating an initial differential diagnosis with an accuracy of 60.3% (95% CI 54.2%-66.6%). Compared to answering questions about general medical knowledge, ChatGPT demonstrated inferior performance on differential diagnosis (β=-15.8%; P<.001) and clinical management (β=-7.4%; P=.02) question types.

conclusionsChatGPT achieves impressive accuracy in clinical decision-making, with increasing strength as it gains more clinical information at its disposal. In particular, ChatGPT demonstrates the greatest accuracy in tasks of final diagnosis as compared to initial diagnosis. Limitations include possible model hallucinations and the unclear composition of ChatGPT's training data set.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingHumansOrganizationsUser-Centered DesignWorkflowaccuracyAIartificial intelligencechatbotChatGPTclinical decision supportclinical vignettesdecision-makingdevelopmentGenerative Pre-trained TransformerGPTlarge language modelsLLMsusabilityutility

Identifiers

PMID37606976
PMCPMC10481210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.