ArticleScientific reports2025
GPT-4's performance in supporting physician decision-making in nephrology multiple-choice questions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models in respiratory care: safety and clinical integration.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Potential of large language models for rapid clinical information support: evidence from acute kidney injury knowledge testing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing GPT-4o in cataract surgery decision-making: appropriateness, consistency, and clinical implications.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Leveraging open-source large language models for clinical information extraction in resource-constrained settings.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Performance of o1 pro and GPT-4 in Self-Assessment Questions for Nephrology Board Renewal.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Between the algorithm and clinical reasoning.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4, a versatile conversational artificial intelligence, has potential applications in medicine, but its ability to support physicians' decision-making remains unclear. We evaluated GPT-4's performance in assisting physicians with nephrology questions. Forty-five single-answer multiple-choice questions were extracted from the Core Curriculum in Nephrology articles published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases from October 2021 to June 2023. Eight junior physicians without board certification and ten senior physicians with board certification answered these questions twice: first unaided, then with the opportunity to revise their answers based on GPT-4's outputs. GPT-4 correctly answered 77.8% of the questions. Before using GPT-4, junior physicians had a median (interquartile range) proportion of correct answers of 53.3% (48.3-53.3), senior physicians 65.6% (60.6-66.7). After GPT-4 support, the median proportion of correct answers significantly increased to 72.2% (68.3-76.1) for juniors and 75.6% (73.3-80.0) for seniors (p = 0.008, p = 0.004). The improvement was significantly higher for junior physicians (p = 0.017). However, Senior physicians showed a decreased proportion of correct answers in one of the clinical categories. GPT-4 significantly improved physicians' accuracy in nephrology, especially among less experienced physicians, but may have negative impacts in specific subfields. Careful consideration is required when using GPT-4 to support physicians' decision-making.
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.