ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2025
Accuracy of Large Language Models in Generating Rare Disease Differential Diagnosis Using Key Clinical Features.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers of Diagnostic Delay in Mitochondrial Disease: Missed Recognition of Canonical Features.JIMD reports · 2026Article
- A statistical framework for evaluating the repeatability and reproducibility of large language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generating differential diagnoses for rare disease patients can be time intensive and highly dependent on the background and training of the evaluating physicians. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to complement this process by automatically generating differentials to support physicians, but their performance in real-world patient populations remains underexplored. To this end, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4o, Llama 3.1-8B-Instruct, and Exomiser in 424 rare disease patients at the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. ChatGPT-4o had the highest differential diagnostic accuracy (22.4% [95% CI: 18.4, 26.4]), outperforming Exomiser (13.9% [10.6, 17.2]; p < 0.001) and Llama 3.1-8B-Instruct (11.6% [8.5, 14.6]; p < 0.001). Adjusting for other factors, age at symptom onset was a significant predictor of ChatGPT-4o's diagnostic accuracy with the model performing better in patients with later symptom onset, potentially due to more distinct phenotypic presentations in older individuals. The combined accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and Exomiser was 30% [25.6, 34.3] and higher than that of either model alone (p < 0.01). This improvement highlights the potential of combining LLMs and bioinformatic models to generate differential diagnoses for rare diseases.
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.