ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Accuracy Evaluation of GPT-Assisted Differential Diagnosis in Emergency Department.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical Student Experiences With ChatGPT: National Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Rapidly Benchmarking Large Language Models for Diagnosing Comorbid Patients: Comparative Study Leveraging the LLM-as-a-Judge Method.JMIRx med · 2025Article
- Areas of research focus and trends in the research on the application of AIGC in healthcare.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Enhancing Pulmonary Disease Prediction Using Large Language Models With Feature Summarization and Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Multicenter Methodological Study Based on Radiology Report.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Medical Diagnostics: Scoping Review With Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to reduce diagnostic errors in emergency medicine: Challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Review
- Co-production of Diagnostic Excellence - Patients, Clinicians, and Artificial Intelligence Comment on "Achieving Diagnostic Excellence: Roadmaps to Develop and Use Patient-Reported Measures With an Equity Lens".International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: A Narrative Review.Archives of academic emergency 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In emergency department (ED) settings, rapid and precise diagnostic evaluations are critical to ensure better patient outcomes and efficient healthcare delivery. This study assesses the accuracy of differential diagnosis lists generated by the third-generation ChatGPT (ChatGPT-3.5) and the fourth-generation ChatGPT (ChatGPT-4) based on electronic health record notes recorded within the first 24 h of ED admission. These models process unstructured text to formulate a ranked list of potential diagnoses. The accuracy of these models was benchmarked against actual discharge diagnoses to evaluate their utility as diagnostic aids. Results indicated that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 reasonably accurately predicted diagnoses at the body system level, with GPT-4 slightly outperforming its predecessor. However, their performance at the more granular category level was inconsistent, often showing decreased precision. Notably, GPT-4 demonstrated improved accuracy in several critical categories that underscores its advanced capabilities in managing complex clinical scenarios.
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.