ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Performance of Microsoft Copilot in the Diagnostic Process of Pulmonary Embolism.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with pulmonary embolism (PE) often present with non-specific signs and symptoms mimicking other conditions and complicating diagnosis. In this study we aimed to evaluate the performance of an artificial-intelligence tool, Microsoft Copilot, in the diagnostic process of PE, using clinical data including demographics, complaints, and vital signs.
methodsWe conducted this study using 140 clinical vignettes, including 70 patients with and 70 patients without PE. The vignettes were derived from published case reports within the last 10 years. We used Copilot for its free GPT-4 integration to analyze clinical data and answer two questions after each vignette. We compared Copilot's ability to identify PE within the top 10 differential diagnoses, and its ability to predict the risk of PE when compared to the use of the Wells score by two independent investigators.
resultsCopilot correctly included PE in the differential diagnosis in 94.3% of cases by listing it within the top 10 conditions. Risk assessment by Copilot yielded significantly higher levels in patients with PE (P<.05). No statistically significant difference was found in the Wells scores between patients with PE and without PE (P>.05). Copilot demonstrated better discriminatory power than the Wells score in risk assessment of PE (area under the curve 0.713 vs 0.583), with statistical significance (P<0.001 vs P=.091). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for discriminating between the combination of low- and intermediate- vs high-risk categories were 34%, 97.1%, 92.3%, and 59.6%, respectively.
conclusionThis study explores the potential of Copilot as a tool in clinical decision-making, demonstrating a high rate of correctly identifying PE and improved performance over the Wells score. However, further validation in larger populations and real-world settings is crucial to fully realize its potential.
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.