ArticleJMIR medical education2023
The Accuracy and Potential Racial and Ethnic Biases of GPT-4 in the Diagnosis and Triage of Health Conditions: Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Professionals and Large Language Models: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating and addressing demographic disparities in medical large language models: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Outpatient reception via collaboration between nurses and a large language model: a randomized controlled trial.Nature medicine · 2024Trial
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Assisted Emergency Triage: A Comparison of Acuity Assessments by GPT-4 and Medical Experts.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- From Promising Capabilities to Pervasive Bias: Assessing Large Language Models for Emergency Department Triage.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Large-language-models for pediatric diagnosis: Performance evaluation using real-world clinical notes from common and rare cases.Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Increasing Large Language Model Accuracy for Care-Seeking Advice Using Prompts Reflecting Human Reasoning Strategies in the Real World: Validation Study.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Performance of 5 AI Models on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Questions: Comparative Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Advancing the science of qualitative patient preference assessment using large language models.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Bias Patterns in the Application of LLMs for Clinical Decision Support: A Comprehensive Study.Delaware journal of public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT model versions for giving care-seeking advice.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Independent and collaborative performance of large language models and healthcare professionals in diagnosis and triage.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a deep learning-based emergency triage model: a feasibility and effectiveness study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- How to Evaluate the Accuracy of Symptom Checkers and Diagnostic Decision Support Systems: Symptom Checker Accuracy Reporting Framework (SCARF).JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Human evaluation of large language models in healthcare: gaps, challenges, and the need for standardization.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and Triage Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on Short Clinical Vignettes.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Automated computation of the HEART score with the GPT-4 large language model.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Public Versus Academic Discourse on ChatGPT in Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self-triage decisions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether GPT-4, the conversational artificial intelligence, can accurately diagnose and triage health conditions and whether it presents racial and ethnic biases in its decisions remain unclear.
objectiveWe aim to assess the accuracy of GPT-4 in the diagnosis and triage of health conditions and whether its performance varies by patient race and ethnicity.
methodsWe compared the performance of GPT-4 and physicians, using 45 typical clinical vignettes, each with a correct diagnosis and triage level, in February and March 2023. For each of the 45 clinical vignettes, GPT-4 and 3 board-certified physicians provided the most likely primary diagnosis and triage level (emergency, nonemergency, or self-care). Independent reviewers evaluated the diagnoses as "correct" or "incorrect." Physician diagnosis was defined as the consensus of the 3 physicians. We evaluated whether the performance of GPT-4 varies by patient race and ethnicity, by adding the information on patient race and ethnicity to the clinical vignettes.
resultsThe accuracy of diagnosis was comparable between GPT-4 and physicians (the percentage of correct diagnosis was 97.8% (44/45; 95% CI 88.2%-99.9%) for GPT-4 and 91.1% (41/45; 95% CI 78.8%-97.5%) for physicians; P=.38). GPT-4 provided appropriate reasoning for 97.8% (44/45) of the vignettes. The appropriateness of triage was comparable between GPT-4 and physicians (GPT-4: 30/45, 66.7%; 95% CI 51.0%-80.0%; physicians: 30/45, 66.7%; 95% CI 51.0%-80.0%; P=.99). The performance of GPT-4 in diagnosing health conditions did not vary among different races and ethnicities (Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic), with an accuracy of 100% (95% CI 78.2%-100%). P values, compared to the GPT-4 output without incorporating race and ethnicity information, were all .99. The accuracy of triage was not significantly different even if patients' race and ethnicity information was added. The accuracy of triage was 62.2% (95% CI 46.5%-76.2%; P=.50) for Black patients; 66.7% (95% CI 51.0%-80.0%; P=.99) for White patients; 66.7% (95% CI 51.0%-80.0%; P=.99) for Asian patients, and 62.2% (95% CI 46.5%-76.2%; P=.69) for Hispanic patients. P values were calculated by comparing the outputs with and without conditioning on race and ethnicity.
conclusionsGPT-4's ability to diagnose and triage typical clinical vignettes was comparable to that of board-certified physicians. The performance of GPT-4 did not vary by patient race and ethnicity. These findings should be informative for health systems looking to introduce conversational artificial intelligence to improve the efficiency of patient diagnosis and triage.
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.