ArticleTranslational neuroscience2024
A pilot evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 for multiple sclerosis from case reports.
Article in Translational neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Two AI Chatbots for Diagnosis and Providing Treatment Suggestions in Retinopathy of Prematurity: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Large language models as clinical decision-support tools in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: A comparative study of ChatGPT-4o and neurologists.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The limitation of artificial intelligence (AI) large language models to diagnose diseases from the perspective of patient safety remains underexplored and potential challenges, such as diagnostic errors and legal challenges, need to be addressed. To demonstrate the limitations of AI, we used ChatGPT-3.5 developed by OpenAI, as a tool for medical diagnosis using text-based case reports of multiple sclerosis (MS), which was selected as a prototypic disease. We analyzed 98 peer-reviewed case reports selected based on free-full text availability and published within the past decade (2014-2024), excluding any mention of an MS diagnosis to avoid bias. ChatGPT-3.5 was used to interpret clinical presentations and laboratory data from these reports. The model correctly diagnosed MS in 77 cases, achieving an accuracy rate of 78.6%. However, the remaining 21 cases were misdiagnosed, highlighting the model's limitations. Factors contributing to the errors include variability in data presentation and the inherent complexity of MS diagnosis, which requires imaging modalities in addition to clinical presentations and laboratory data. While these findings suggest that AI can support disease diagnosis and healthcare providers in decision-making, inadequate training with large datasets may lead to significant inaccuracies. Integrating AI into clinical practice necessitates rigorous validation and robust regulatory frameworks to ensure responsible use.
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.