Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39499913›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

The Accuracy and Capability of Artificial Intelligence Solutions in Health Care Examinations and Certificates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

William J Waldock, Joe Zhang, Ahmad Guni, Ahmad Nabeel, Ara Darzi, Hutan Ashrafian

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. AI-Powered Clinical Decision Support in Dentistry: Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Oral Medicine and Periodontal Diagnosis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

William J WaldockImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3283-4096
Joe ZhangImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6040-2122
Ahmad GuniImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3265-8096
Ahmad NabeelInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4730-4397
Ara DarziImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7815-7989
Hutan AshrafianInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1668-0672

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have dominated public interest due to their apparent capability to accurately replicate learned knowledge in narrative text. However, there is a lack of clarity about the accuracy and capability standards of LLMs in health care examinations.

objectiveWe conducted a systematic review of LLM accuracy, as tested under health care examination conditions, as compared to known human performance standards.

methodsWe quantified the accuracy of LLMs in responding to health care examination questions and evaluated the consistency and quality of study reporting. The search included all papers up until September 10, 2023, with all LLMs published in English journals that report clear LLM accuracy standards. The exclusion criteria were as follows: the assessment was not a health care exam, there was no LLM, there was no evaluation of comparable success accuracy, and the literature was not original research.The literature search included the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used in all possible combinations: "artificial intelligence," "ChatGPT," "GPT," "LLM," "large language model," "machine learning," "neural network," "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," "Generative Transformer," "Generative Language Model," "Generative Model," "medical exam," "healthcare exam," and "clinical exam." Sensitivity, accuracy, and precision data were extracted, including relevant CIs.

resultsThe search identified 1673 relevant citations. After removing duplicate results, 1268 (75.8%) papers were screened for titles and abstracts, and 32 (2.5%) studies were included for full-text review. Our meta-analysis suggested that LLMs are able to perform with an overall medical examination accuracy of 0.61 (CI 0.58-0.64) and a United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) accuracy of 0.51 (CI 0.46-0.56), while Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) can perform with an overall medical examination accuracy of 0.64 (CI 0.6-0.67).

conclusionsLLMs offer promise to remediate health care demand and staffing challenges by providing accurate and efficient context-specific information to critical decision makers. For policy and deployment decisions about LLMs to advance health care, we proposed a new framework called RUBRICC (Regulatory, Usability, Bias, Reliability [Evidence and Safety], Interoperability, Cost, and Codesign-Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement [PPIE]). This presents a valuable opportunity to direct the clinical commissioning of new LLM capabilities into health services, while respecting patient safety considerations.

trial registrationOSF Registries osf.io/xqzkw; https://osf.io/xqzkw.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCertificationHumansAIartificial intelligenceclinical commissioninghealth care examhealth care examinationhealth serviceslarge language modelLLMnarrative medical responsesafety

Identifiers

PMID39499913
PMCPMC11576595

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.