ArticleCureus2024
Diagnostic Performance of GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus in Determining Causes of Death From Medical Histories and Postmortem CT Findings.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in pituitary surgery: the path to clinical solutions.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Review
- Early Postmortem Changes in Pancreas: An Antemortem and Postmortem Computed Tomography Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Vision language models versus machine learning models performance on polyp detection and classification in colonoscopy images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study evaluates the diagnostic performance of the latest large language models (LLMs), GPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) and Claude 3 Opus (Anthropic, San Francisco, CA, USA), in determining causes of death from medical histories and postmortem CT findings.
methodsWe included 100 adult cases whose postmortem CT scans were diagnosable for the causes of death using the gold standard of autopsy results. Their medical histories and postmortem CT findings were compiled, and clinical and imaging diagnoses of both the underlying and immediate causes of death, as well as their personal information, were carefully separated from the database to be shown to the LLMs. Both GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus generated the top three differential diagnoses for each of the underlying or immediate causes of death based on the following three prompts: 1) medical history only; 2) postmortem CT findings only; and 3) both medical history and postmortem CT findings. The diagnostic performance of the LLMs was compared using McNemar's test.
resultsFor the underlying cause of death, GPT-4o achieved primary diagnostic accuracy rates of 78%, 72%, and 78%, while Claude 3 Opus achieved 72%, 56%, and 75% for prompts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Including any of the top three differential diagnoses, GPT-4o's accuracy rates were 92%, 90%, and 92%, while Claude 3 Opus's rates were 93%, 69%, and 93% for prompts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For the immediate cause of death, GPT-4o's primary diagnostic accuracy rates were 55%, 58%, and 62%, while Claude 3 Opus's rates were 60%, 62%, and 63% for prompts 1,2, and 3, respectively. For any of the top three differential diagnoses, GPT-4o's accuracy rates were 88% for prompt 1 and 91% for prompts 2 and 3, whereas Claude 3 Opus's rates were 92% for all three prompts. Significant differences between the models were observed for prompt two in diagnosing the underlying cause of death (p = 0.03 and <0.01 for the primary and top three differential diagnoses, respectively).
conclusionBoth GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus demonstrated relatively high performance in diagnosing both the underlying and immediate causes of death using medical histories and postmortem CT findings.
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.