ArticleJMIR medical education2024
Evaluation of ChatGPT-Generated Differential Diagnosis for Common Diseases With Atypical Presentation: Descriptive Research.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Model-Generated Differential Diagnoses in Radiology Education: Comparison with a Standard Casebook.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Atypical Presentations at Risk for Diagnostic Errors in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Virtual assistants based on artificial intelligence for oral diagnosis: help for clinicians AI oral diagnosis helper.Diagnostic pathology · 2026Article
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT models in salivary gland disease: a multimodal vignette-based evaluation.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Virtual medicine: medical AI in human health and diseases.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- AI-Generated "Slop" in Online Biomedical Science Educational Videos: Mixed Methods Study of Prevalence, Characteristics, and Hazards to Learners and Teachers.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance comparison between generative AI and physicians.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring prospects, hurdles, and road ahead for generative artificial intelligence in orthopedic education and training.BMC medical education · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The persistence of diagnostic errors, despite advances in medical knowledge and diagnostics, highlights the importance of understanding atypical disease presentations and their contribution to mortality and morbidity. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative pre-trained transformers like GPT-4, holds promise for improving diagnostic accuracy, but requires further exploration in handling atypical presentations. Objective: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT in generating differential diagnoses for atypical presentations of common diseases, with a focus on the model's reliance on patient history during the diagnostic process. Methods: We used 25 clinical vignettes from the Journal of Generalist Medicine characterizing atypical manifestations of common diseases. Two general medicine physicians categorized the cases based on atypicality. ChatGPT was then used to generate differential diagnoses based on the clinical information provided. The concordance between AI-generated and final diagnoses was measured, with a focus on the top-ranked disease (top 1) and the top 5 differential diagnoses (top 5). Results: ChatGPT's diagnostic accuracy decreased with an increase in atypical presentation. For category 1 (C1) cases, the concordance rates were 17% (n=1) for the top 1 and 67% (n=4) for the top 5. Categories 3 (C3) and 4 (C4) showed a 0% concordance for top 1 and markedly lower rates for the top 5, indicating difficulties in handling highly atypical cases. The χ2 test revealed no significant difference in the top 1 differential diagnosis accuracy between less atypical (C1+C2) and more atypical (C3+C4) groups (χ²1=2.07; n=25; P=.13). However, a significant difference was found in the top 5 analyses, with less atypical cases showing higher accuracy (χ²1=4.01; n=25; P=.048). Conclusions: ChatGPT-4 demonstrates potential as an auxiliary tool for diagnosing typical and mildly atypical presentations of common diseases. However, its performance declines with greater atypicality. The study findings underscore the need for AI systems to encompass a broader range of linguistic capabilities, cultural understanding, and diverse clinical scenarios to improve diagnostic utility in real-world settings.
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.