ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
ChatGPT-4o assists emergency physicians in enhancing diagnostic accuracy for fever of unknown origin: retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate ChatGPT-4o’s diagnostic accuracy for fever of unknown origin (FUO) compared to emergency physicians and assess its utility as an adjunctive diagnostic tool.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 60 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with FUO (fever ≥ 38.3℃ for ≥ 3 weeks without diagnosis after initial evaluation). Only patients with a confirmed final discharge diagnosis were included; FUO cases remaining undiagnosed at discharge were excluded. ChatGPT-4o and emergency medicine (EM) physicians independently generated preliminary diagnoses and comprehensive diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was compared against final discharge diagnoses. EM physicians subsequently revised their diagnoses after reviewing ChatGPT-4o’s output. Statistical analysis employed Welch’s ANOVA.
resultsChatGPT-4o significantly outperformed EM residents in both preliminary (70.0% vs. 46.11%; 95% CI, 57.6%-79.9% vs. 34.4%-59.3%, P = 0.008) and comprehensive diagnoses (75.0% vs. 55.0%, 95% CI, 62.9%-84.1% vs. 42.5%-66.9%, P = 0.002). While numerically higher than EM specialists in both preliminary (70.0% vs. 57.78%) and comprehensive diagnoses (75.0% vs. 68.89%), these differences did not demonstrate consistent statistical superiority. Incorporating ChatGPT-4o’s suggestions significantly improved accuracy for both EM residents (preliminary: 67.78% vs. 46.11%, 95% CI, 55.8%-78.6% vs. 34.4%-59.3%, P = 0.002; comprehensive: 78.33% vs. 55.0%, 95% CI, 66.8%-86.6% vs. 42.5%-66.9%, P = 0.01) and specialists (preliminary: 70.22% vs. 57.78%, P = 0.023), though the improvement in specialists’ comprehensive diagnoses remained non-significant (80.89% vs. 66.67%, P = 0.076). Stratified analysis showed that ChatGPT-4o significantly improved diagnostic accuracy across major etiologic categories, including infectious (76.0% vs. 59.4%, P = 0.003) and cancer-related causes (72.2% vs. 50.0%, P < 0.001).
conclusionsChatGPT-4o demonstrates potential to augment FUO diagnosis, particularly aiding less experienced clinicians. While this study highlights AI’s complementary value, prospective trials are needed to validate its impact on clinical efficiency.
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.