ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of large language models as a diagnostic tool for medical learners and clinicians using advanced prompting techniques.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can artificial intelligence pass the test? Evaluating chatbot scores on pediatric gastroenterology board-style questions.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- A Supervised Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Lifestyle Management in Patients With Prostate Cancer: Development and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Gender-Attributed Persona Prompts and the Diagnostic Accuracy of Proprietary and Open-Weight Large Language Models in Chagas Disease and Visceral Leishmaniasis: A Paired Experimental Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.