ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
ChatGPT in the diagnosis and management of complex polyneuropathies: comparative analysis with neurologists using real-world cases.
Article in NPJ digital 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
47 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyneuropathies are common and often require specialist expertise for accurate diagnosis. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of ChatGPT-4o on real-world polyneuropathy cases, comparing it to peripheral neuropathy specialists and non-specialist neurologists. One hundred cases were selected from two tertiary centers in Milan, Italy. Standardized summaries included clinical, laboratory, and electrophysiological data. ChatGPT-4o was prompted to provide a leading diagnosis, two differentials, and a confirmatory test. Neurologists reviewed the same cases and generated comparable outputs, then could revise their responses after viewing ChatGPT-4o's suggestions. ChatGPT-4o achieved 65.5% leading diagnosis accuracy, comparable to non-specialists (63.0%) but lower than specialists (74.0%, p = 0.002). For differential diagnoses, it outperformed non-specialists (82.0% vs. 77.5%, p = 0.043) and recommended more appropriate tests (68.0% vs. 53.0%, p < 0.001). After reviewing ChatGPT-4o outputs, non-specialists revised their assessments in 21.8% of cases, improving accuracy. ChatGPT-4o shows potential as a diagnostic aid, particularly in non-specialist or resource-limited settings.
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.