ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
ChatGPT Influence on Medical Decision-Making, Bias, and Equity: A Randomized Study of Clinicians Evaluating Clinical Vignettes.
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. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Safety Risks Across Languages in Health-Relevant Queries: Vulnerability Analysis of Large Language Model Responses.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of four large language models in generating evidence-based exercise prescriptions using FITT-VP framework.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Critical Appraisal Tools for Evaluating Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Studies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Comparing Generative Artificial Intelligence and Mental Health Professionals for Clinical Decision-Making With Trauma-Exposed Populations: Vignette-Based Experimental Study.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Addressing 6 challenges in generative AI for digital health: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a randomized, pre-post intervention study, we evaluated the influence of a large language model (LLM) generative AI system on accuracy of physician decision-making and bias in healthcare. 50 US-licensed physicians reviewed a video clinical vignette, featuring actors representing different demographics (a White male or a Black female) with chest pain. Participants were asked to answer clinical questions around triage, risk, and treatment based on these vignettes, then asked to reconsider after receiving advice generated by ChatGPT+ (GPT4). The primary outcome was the accuracy of clinical decisions based on pre-established evidence-based guidelines. Results showed that physicians are willing to change their initial clinical impressions given AI assistance, and that this led to a significant improvement in clinical decision-making accuracy in a chest pain evaluation scenario without introducing or exacerbating existing race or gender biases. A survey of physician participants indicates that the majority expect LLM tools to play a significant role in clinical decision making.
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.