Trial reportNature medicine2025
GPT-4 assistance for improvement of physician performance on patient care tasks: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Nature medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 94 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.
Management Reasoning With AI Chat Bots
Comparing OpenEvidence and GPT-4 for Diagnostic Reasoning and Management Decisions: A Randomized Trial
Who cites it
94 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Copilot in Simulated Primary Care Consultations: Randomized Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- Generative AI-enabled clinical decision support system in primary care: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- An LLM chatbot to facilitate primary-to-specialist care transitions: a randomized controlled trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- A large language model for complex cardiology care.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- AI-Based EMG Reporting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of neurology · 2025Trial
- LungGPT: A unified multimodal system for interpretable diagnosis and clinical decision support of respiratory diseases.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Toward a test of medical AI superintelligence.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Building Clinical Artificial Intelligence at the PICU Bedside: Recognizing the Clinician-Builder.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Evaluating foundation models on official German medical licensing examinations: Implications for high-stakes assessment and AI-assisted medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Deep learning-derived left ventricular circumferential strain for cardiac MRI diagnosis of acute myocarditis with preserved ejection fraction.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- A lifecycle governance and learning health system framework for trustworthy, generalizable, and sustainable human-ai partnership in clinical practice: Lessons from the asthma-guidance and prediction system (A-GPS).Journal of the National Medical Association · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Embracing Large Language Models for Medical Applications, Part II: Building a Framework for Clinical Stewardship.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- A Multiagent Large Language Model Framework for Emergency Treatment Recommendation in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial stupidity or logimorphism? How misuse of language warps our thinking about 'artificial intelligence'.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- BRIDGE: benchmarking large language models for understanding real-world clinical practice texts.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and reporting quality of large language model interventions in practice: a systematic evidence map.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in diagnostic reasoning, their impact on management reasoning, which involves balancing treatment decisions and testing strategies while managing risk, is unknown. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessed whether LLM assistance improves physician performance on open-ended management reasoning tasks compared to conventional resources. From November 2023 to April 2024, 92 practicing physicians were randomized to use either GPT-4 plus conventional resources or conventional resources alone to answer five expert-developed clinical vignettes in a simulated setting. All cases were based on real, de-identified patient encounters, with information revealed sequentially to mirror the nature of clinical environments. The primary outcome was the difference in total score between groups on expert-developed scoring rubrics. Secondary outcomes included domain-specific scores and time spent per case. Physicians using the LLM scored significantly higher compared to those using conventional resources (mean difference = 6.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.7 to 10.2, P < 0.001). LLM users spent more time per case (mean difference = 119.3 s, 95% CI = 17.4 to 221.2, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between LLM-augmented physicians and LLM alone (-0.9%, 95% CI = -9.0 to 7.2, P = 0.8). LLM assistance can improve physician management reasoning in complex clinical vignettes compared to conventional resources and should be validated in real clinical practice. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT06208423 .
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.