ArticleJournal of clinical practice and research2026
Comparison of Intern Doctors and ChatGPT in Emergency Cases Assessment.
Article in Journal of clinical practice and research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Accurate and timely diagnosis in emergency departments is crucial due to the high patient volume and time-sensitive nature of care. Intern doctors, who are nearing the completion of medical school, frequently work in emergency departments in many countries. However, after graduation, physicians are often expected to assume critical patient care responsibilities despite limited experience. Artificial intelligence models can quickly analyze patient data and generate diagnoses, thus assisting inexperienced physicians in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ChatGPT-4 in emergency department case scenarios and compare its accuracy with that of intern doctors. Materials and Methods: This study involved intern doctors participating in the internship program during the 2024-2025 academic year. A total of 36 case-based questions, categorized by difficulty level, were administered to 155 interns and subsequently presented to artificial intelligence. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and a one-sample t-test was conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy between intern doctors and ChatGPT. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Intern doctors achieved an overall correct response rate of 58.3%, while ChatGPT achieved a rate of 97.2%. A statistically significant, moderate negative correlation was found between question difficulty and interns' performance (r=-0.684; p<0.001), indicating decreased accuracy as question difficulty increased. ChatGPT consistently demonstrated significantly higher performance across all difficulty levels. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 may serve as a valuable diagnostic support tool in emergency departments, particularly for newly graduated physicians with limited clinical experience.
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.