Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41578521›Full record

ArticleMedicine2026

Comparative analysis of multimodal large language models GPT-4o and o1 versus clinicians in clinical case challenge questions: Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Jaewon Jung, Hyunjae Kim, SungA Bae, Jin Young Park

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jaewon JungDepartment of Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyunjae KimDepartment of Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
SungA BaeDepartment of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1484-4645
Jin Young ParkDepartment of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Republic of Korea.

Funding

Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) RS-2023-KH135442new faculty research seed money grant from Yonsei University College of Medicine 2025-32-0022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4) has demonstrated strong performance in standardized medical examinations but has limitations in real-world clinical settings. To address these limitations, the multimodal GPT-4o model integrates text and image inputs, and the multimodal o1 model incorporates advanced reasoning. This study compared the performance of GPT-4o and o1 against that of Medscape respondents (majority vote) in real-world clinical case challenges. This retrospective, cross-sectional study used 1426 Medscape case challenge questions from May 2011 to June 2024. Each case included text and images of patient history, physical examinations, diagnostic tests, and imaging studies. Medscape respondents were required to choose 1 answer from among multiple options, with the most frequent response defined as the Medscape respondent's decision. GPT models (3.5 Turbo, 4 Turbo, 4 Omni, and o1) were used to interpret the text and images and generate formatted responses. We compared the performances of the Medscape respondents and GPT models using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. Medscape respondents (majority vote) achieved an overall accuracy of 85.0%, whereas GPT-4o and o1 demonstrated higher accuracies of 88.4% (P = .005) and 94.3% (P < .001), respectively. In multimodal analysis involving images (n = 917), GPT-4o achieved an accuracy of 88.3% (P = .005), while o1 achieved 93.9% (P < .001), both significantly outperforming Medscape respondents. o1 demonstrated the highest accuracy across all question categories, achieving 92.6% (P < .001) in diagnosis, 97.0% (P < .001) in disease characteristics, 92.6% (P = .002) in examination, and 94.8% (P = .005) in treatment. In terms of medical specialty, o1 achieved 93.6% (P < .001) accuracy in internal medicine, 96.6% (P = .030) in major surgery, 97.3% (P = .030) in psychiatry, and 95.4% (P < .001) in minor specialties, significantly surpassing Medscape respondents. Across 5 trials, GPT-4o and o1 provided the correct answer 5/5 times in 86.2% and 90.7% of the cases, respectively. The GPT-4o and o1 models achieved higher accuracy than Medscape respondents (majority vote) in clinical case evaluations, particularly in disease diagnosis. GPT-4o and o1 could serve as valuable tools to assist healthcare professionals in structured scenarios.

Indexed as

DiagnosisLarge Language ModelsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligenceclinical decision-makingdiagnostic accuracyGPT-4 omnimultimodal large language modelo1

Identifiers

PMID41578521
PMCPMC12851745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.