Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40749008›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Evaluation of large language models as a diagnostic tool for medical learners and clinicians using advanced prompting techniques.

Karolina Gaebe, Benjamin van der Woerd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karolina GaebeDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery - Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7856-9745
Benjamin van der WoerdDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery - Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4189-2733

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated capabilities in natural language processing and critical reasoning. Studies investigating their potential use as healthcare diagnostic tools have largely relied on proprietary models like ChatGPT and have not explored the application of advanced prompt engineering techniques. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of three open-source LLMs and the role of prompt engineering using clinical scenarios.

methodsWe analyzed the performance of three open-source LLMs-llama-3.1-70b-versatile, llama-3.1-8b-instant, and mixtral-8x7b-32768-using advanced prompt engineering when answering Medscape Clinical Challenge questions. Responses were recorded and evaluated for correctness, accuracy, precision, specificity, and sensitivity. A sensitivity analysis was conducted presenting the three LLMs with basic prompting challenge questions and excluding cases with visual assets. Results were compared with previously published performance data on GPT-3.5.

resultsLlama-3.1-70b-versatile, llama-3.1-8b-instant, and mixtral-8x7b-32768 achieved correct responses in 79%, 65%, and 62% of cases, respectively, outperforming GPT-3.5 (74%). Diagnostic accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity responses all outperformed those previously reported for GPT-3.5. Results generated using advanced prompting strategies were superior to those based on basic prompting. Sensitivity analysis revealed similar trends when cases with visual assets were excluded. DISCUSSION: Using advanced prompting techniques, LLMs can generate clinically accurate responses. The study highlights the limitations of proprietary models like ChatGPT, particularly in terms of accessibility and reproducibility due to version deprecation. Future research should employ prompt engineering techniques and prioritize the use of open-source models to ensure research replicability.

Indexed as

LanguageNatural Language ProcessingHumansLarge Language Models

Identifiers

PMID40749008
PMCPMC12316197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.