ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Artificial intelligence vs. emergency physicians: who diagnoses better?
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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.
- Large language models in the diagnosis and treatment of immunosuppression-related infections in rheumatic diseases: a comparative, vignette-based study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4o in delirium recognition: a pilot study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and initial diagnostic test selection capabilities of large language models with an experienced emergency medicine specialist in simulated emergency department scenarios.
methodsA series of brief case presentations were created by an expert committee to reflect real-world emergency conditions. Each brief case presentation included clinical history and physical examination findings but excluded laboratory and imaging data. The study compared the diagnostic accuracy and initial test selection performance of an emergency medicine specialist with three different large language model versions: ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-3.5-mini. The accuracy of responses was assessed based on predefined correct diagnoses and appropriate first-line tests. Statistical comparisons were conducted using the Cochran-Q test and McNemar test.
resultsThe diagnostic accuracy rates were 92% for the human expert, 97% for ChatGPT-4, and 99% for both ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-3.5-mini (p=0.039 for ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-3.5-mini vs. human expert). The accuracy of initial diagnostic test selection was 88% for the human expert, 80% for ChatGPT-4, 87% for ChatGPT-4o, and 89% for ChatGPT-3.5-mini (p>0.05 for all comparisons). The most frequent diagnostic errors were related to cardiovascular (7/13) and gastrointestinal (4/13) cases.
conclusionsLarge language models demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy, outperforming the human expert in diagnosis while performing comparably in selecting initial diagnostic tests. These findings suggest that artificial intelligence models could serve as valuable decision-support tools in emergency medicine. However, further research is needed to evaluate their performance in real-world clinical settings.
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.