ArticleScientific reports2026
A benchmark for evaluating diagnostic questioning efficiency of LLMs in patient conversations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models for Breast Cancer Patient Education: A Comparative Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physician–patient diagnostic interactions often rely on incomplete, uncertain, and noisy symptom descriptions expressed in non-specialist language. To reach an accurate diagnosis efficiently, physicians employ adaptive sequences of focused questions in which each inquiry depends on prior patient responses. Similar requirements apply to AI assistants engaged in clinical dialogue, which must strategically select questions to elicit diagnostic information efficiently. While several datasets and benchmarks address clinical reasoning, few focus on evaluating the strategic inquiry process itself. To address this gap, we introduce Q4Dx (Question-Driven Diagnosis), a benchmark for assessing goal-directed diagnostic questioning. Q4Dx consists of synthetically generated patient cases derived from curated symptom–disease knowledge. Each case is instantiated at multiple information levels (100%, 80%, and 50% symptom exposure) to evaluate performance under varying informational constraints. We simulate patient–physician interactions using GPT-4.1 and GPT-4o-mini agents to generate clinician questions, patient responses, and intermediate diagnostic hypotheses. Performance is evaluated using Zero-shot Diagnostic Accuracy (ZDA), Mean Questions to Correct Diagnosis (MQD), and Inquire Sequence Efficiency (ISE), which measures convergence toward the correct diagnosis. Q4Dx provides a reusable framework for benchmarking large language models in strategic clinical inquiry and supports future research on AI-assisted diagnostic training. The dataset and benchmark are publicly available at: https://github.com/MaiWert/MedQDx .
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.