Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39394122›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

The future of AI clinicians: assessing the modern standard of chatbots and their approach to diagnostic uncertainty.

Ryan S Huang, Ali Benour, Joel Kemppainen, Fok-Han Leung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ryan S HuangTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Health Centre at 80 Bond, St. Michael's Hospital, 80 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B1X2, Canada. ry.huang@mail.utoronto.ca.
Ali BenourDepartment of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.
Joel KemppainenDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Fok-Han LeungDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceClinical CompetenceInternship and ResidencyEducational MeasurementFamily PracticeHumansUncertaintyArtificial intelligenceDecision makingDiagnostic uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39394122
PMCPMC11470580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.