ArticleBMC medical education2024
The future of AI clinicians: assessing the modern standard of chatbots and their approach to diagnostic uncertainty.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of AI-based Chatbot Performance in Analyzing Clinical Scenarios versus Medical Residents: A Novel Approach in Chest Diseases Education.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and citation integrity of four large language models on otolaryngology vignettes.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
- Evaluation of AI tool assisting primary healthcare physicians to diagnostic and treatment tasks.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Promise and pitfalls of AI chatbots in complex decision-making for thyroid nodules and papillary thyroid cancer.European thyroid journal · 2026Article
- The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- Evidence-Based Analysis of AI Chatbots in Oncology Patient Education: Implications for Trust, Perceived Realness, and Misinformation Management.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Review
- How Well Can an LLM Chatbot Clarify Queries by Medical Students in Biomedical TBL?Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Addressing the challenges of field notes in medical education: a qualitative study of resident experiences.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Advancing Clinical Chatbot Validation Using AI-Powered Evaluation With a New 3-Bot Evaluation System: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR nursing · 2025Article
- The Role of ChatGPT and AI Chatbots in Optimizing Antibiotic Therapy: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in medical and biological research: promise and perils of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in advancing healthcare.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have demonstrated proficiency in structured knowledge assessments; however, there is limited research on their performance in scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty, which requires careful interpretation and complex decision-making. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of AI chatbots, GPT-4o and Claude-3, in addressing medical scenarios characterized by diagnostic uncertainty relative to Family Medicine residents.
methodsQuestions with diagnostic uncertainty were extracted from the Progress Tests administered by the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto between 2022 and 2023. Diagnostic uncertainty questions were defined as those presenting clinical scenarios where symptoms, clinical findings, and patient histories do not converge on a definitive diagnosis, necessitating nuanced diagnostic reasoning and differential diagnosis. These questions were administered to a cohort of 320 Family Medicine residents in their first (PGY-1) and second (PGY-2) postgraduate years and inputted into GPT-4o and Claude-3. Errors were categorized into statistical, information, and logical errors. Statistical analyses were conducted using a binomial generalized estimating equation model, paired t-tests, and chi-squared tests.
resultsCompared to the residents, both chatbots scored lower on diagnostic uncertainty questions (p < 0.01). PGY-1 residents achieved a correctness rate of 61.1% (95% CI: 58.4-63.7), and PGY-2 residents achieved 63.3% (95% CI: 60.7-66.1). In contrast, Claude-3 correctly answered 57.7% (n = 52/90) of questions, and GPT-4o correctly answered 53.3% (n = 48/90). Claude-3 had a longer mean response time (24.0 s, 95% CI: 21.0-32.5 vs. 12.4 s, 95% CI: 9.3-15.3; p < 0.01) and produced longer answers (2001 characters, 95% CI: 1845-2212 vs. 1596 characters, 95% CI: 1395-1705; p < 0.01) compared to GPT-4o. Most errors by GPT-4o were logical errors (62.5%).
conclusionsWhile AI chatbots like GPT-4o and Claude-3 demonstrate potential in handling structured medical knowledge, their performance in scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty remains suboptimal compared to human residents.
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.