ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini in Approximating Clinically Confirmed Diagnoses From Structured Numerical Pure-Tone Audiogram Data.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionThe utilization of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare shows promising potential for addressing the global shortage of audiologists. However, their effectiveness in understanding and interpreting complex, live, real-world structured audiological data requires further investigation, as previous studies have primarily focused on theoretical situations and scenarios. This study aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic inference abilities of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, USA) and Gemini (Google, Mountain View, USA) in differentiating clinically confirmed diagnoses based on numerical pure-tone audiogram data.
methodsThis prospective comparative study was conducted at Damascus Hospital (Al-Mujtahid Hospital), Damascus, Syria. Pure-tone audiograms were collected from 309 patients aged between six and 90 years in the audiology department. Audiograms were converted into a numerical format and independently analyzed by ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro. The outputs were then compared with the reference standard, namely, expert clinical diagnosis, to evaluate accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and Cohen's kappa for both models.
resultsHearing loss was identified in 274 of 309 patients (88.7%). ChatGPT demonstrated 60.8% accuracy, with a weighted sensitivity of 68.9%, a weighted specificity of 94.5%, and a Cohen's kappa of 0.578. Gemini achieved a significantly higher accuracy of 86.1%, with a weighted sensitivity of 87.7%, a weighted specificity of 97.5%, and a Cohen's kappa of 0.848. Both models demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for certain conditions, such as otosclerosis and presbycusis. The most common diagnosis was otosclerosis (27%), followed by presbycusis (16%).
conclusionThe findings suggest that Gemini 1.5 Pro demonstrated stronger performance, achieving an accuracy of 86.1%, whereas ChatGPT-4o achieved 60.8% in interpreting real-world pure-tone audiograms. Both models showed high agreement in common audiometric patterns. These models should not be relied upon independently but may serve as supportive tools under clinician supervision to reduce diagnostic errors.
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.