ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Performance of large language model in cross-specialty medical scenarios.
Article in Journal of translational 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential in healthcare, yet their diagnostic and therapeutic accuracy across medical specialties remains inadequately characterized.
methodsThis study aimed to compare diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities of GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Claude-3-Sonnet across 12 medical specialties using standardized clinical vignettes. 50 PubMed-derived clinical cases between 2007 and 2024 were assessed. Two board-certified physicians independently evaluated LLMs outputs, with a senior clinician adjudicating discrepancies. All LLMs received identical text-based case descriptions with or without images, generating free-text diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for blinded, randomized evaluation.
resultsAmong the three evaluated LLMs, GPT-4o demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (median 10; IQR, 7.5–10), outperforming Claude-3-Sonnet (median 8; IQR, 2.8–10; P = .02) and GPT-3.5-Turbo (median 4; IQR, 1–9.3; P < .0001). A narrow IQR and minimal variation (SD = 2.9; range = 5.0) reflected high consistency in diagnostic outputs across diverse medical fields. For therapeutic recommendations, GPT-4o (median 10, IQR 0–10) outperformed GPT-3.5-Turbo (median 0, IQR 0–6.3; P = .0005) but showed no significant advantage over Claude-3-Sonnet (median 5, IQR 0–10; P = .45).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that advanced LLMs, particularly GPT-4o, have significant potential to support clinical diagnostics, showing high accuracy and consistency across specialties. However, their inconsistent performance in generating therapeutic recommendations presents a major barrier to clinical adoption.
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.