Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39910272›Full record

Trial reportNature medicine2025

GPT-4 assistance for improvement of physician performance on patient care tasks: a randomized controlled trial.

Ethan Goh, Robert J Gallo, Eric Strong, Yingjie Weng, Hannah Kerman, Jason A Freed, Joséphine A Cool, Zahir Kanjee, Kathleen P Lane, Andrew S Parsons and 8 more

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing 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.

NCT06208423 nacompletednot on this map

Management Reasoning With AI Chat Bots

TypeinterventionalSponsorStanford UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled92ConditionsClinical Decision-makingArmsGPT-4
NCT07037940 nacompletednot on this map

Comparing OpenEvidence and GPT-4 for Diagnostic Reasoning and Management Decisions: A Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMontefiore Medical CenterRan2025 to 2025Enrolled41ConditionsLarge Language ModelsArmsOpenEvidence, GPT-4
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Ethan Goh *Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7491-4257
Robert J Gallo *Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2601-0173
Eric StrongStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Yingjie WengQuantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Hannah KermanBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Jason A FreedBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Joséphine A CoolBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Zahir KanjeeBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9287-4503
Kathleen P LaneDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Andrew S ParsonsDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Neera AhujaStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Eric HorvitzMicrosoft, Redmond, WA, USA.
Daniel YangKaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA, USA.
Arnold MilsteinStanford Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2794-2378
Andrew P J OlsonDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jason HomStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jonathan H ChenStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. jonc101@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4387-8740
Adam RodmanBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Research and EducationUM1TR004921 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MANISHA DESAI, DEAN W FELSHER · 2024 to 2026
$30.1M
Western States Node of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (TMS for CUD) UG1DA015815 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Keith N. Humphreys, Philip Todd Korthuis · 2015 to 2026
$24.6M
Center for Undiagnosed Diseases at StanfordU01NS134358 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jonathan Adam Bernstein, HOLLY K TABOR · 2023 to 2026
$3.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004921NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA015815NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS134358
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetencePatient CarePhysiciansAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID39910272
PMCPMC12380382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.