ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance: Differential Diagnosis Lists by LLaMA3 Versus LLaMA2 for Case Reports.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Opportunities and Challenges of Chatbots in Ophthalmology: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in the form of large language models, has rapidly developed. The LLaMA series are popular and recently updated from LLaMA2 to LLaMA3. However, the impacts of the update on diagnostic performance have not been well documented.
objectiveWe conducted a comparative evaluation of the diagnostic performance in differential diagnosis lists generated by LLaMA3 and LLaMA2 for case reports.
methodsWe analyzed case reports published in the American Journal of Case Reports from 2022 to 2023. After excluding nondiagnostic and pediatric cases, we input the remaining cases into LLaMA3 and LLaMA2 using the same prompt and the same adjustable parameters. Diagnostic performance was defined by whether the differential diagnosis lists included the final diagnosis. Multiple physicians independently evaluated whether the final diagnosis was included in the top 10 differentials generated by LLaMA3 and LLaMA2.
resultsIn our comparative evaluation of the diagnostic performance between LLaMA3 and LLaMA2, we analyzed differential diagnosis lists for 392 case reports. The final diagnosis was included in the top 10 differentials generated by LLaMA3 in 79.6% (312/392) of the cases, compared to 49.7% (195/392) for LLaMA2, indicating a statistically significant improvement (P<.001). Additionally, LLaMA3 showed higher performance in including the final diagnosis in the top 5 differentials, observed in 63% (247/392) of cases, compared to LLaMA2's 38% (149/392, P<.001). Furthermore, the top diagnosis was accurately identified by LLaMA3 in 33.9% (133/392) of cases, significantly higher than the 22.7% (89/392) achieved by LLaMA2 (P<.001). The analysis across various medical specialties revealed variations in diagnostic performance with LLaMA3 consistently outperforming LLaMA2.
conclusionsThe results reveal that the LLaMA3 model significantly outperforms LLaMA2 per diagnostic performance, with a higher percentage of case reports having the final diagnosis listed within the top 10, top 5, and as the top diagnosis. Overall diagnostic performance improved almost 1.5 times from LLaMA2 to LLaMA3. These findings support the rapid development and continuous refinement of generative AI systems to enhance diagnostic processes in medicine. However, these findings should be carefully interpreted for clinical application, as generative AI, including the LLaMA series, has not been approved for medical applications such as AI-enhanced diagnostics.
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.