Assessing the Utility of ChatGPT Throughout the Entire Clinical Workflow: Development and Usability Study
Large language model (LLM)–based artificial intelligence chatbots direct the power of large training data sets toward successive, related tasks as opposed to single-ask tasks, for which artificial intelligence already achieves impressive performance. The capacity of LLMs to assist in the full scope of iterative clinical reasoning via successive prompting, in effect acting as artificial physicians, has not yet been evaluated.
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT’s capacity for ongoing clinical decision support via its performance on standardized clinical vignettes.
Methods
We inputted all 36 published clinical vignettes from the Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) Clinical Manual into ChatGPT and compared its accuracy on differential diagnoses, diagnostic testing, final diagnosis, and management based on patient age, gender, and case acuity. Accuracy was measured by the proportion of correct responses to the questions posed within the clinical vignettes tested, as calculated by human scorers. We further conducted linear regression to assess the contributing factors toward ChatGPT’s performance on clinical tasks.
Results
ChatGPT achieved an overall accuracy of 71.7% (95% CI 69.3%-74.1%) across all 36 clinical vignettes. The LLM demonstrated the highest performance in making a final diagnosis with an accuracy of 76.9% (95% CI 67.8%-86.1%) and the lowest performance in generating an initial differential diagnosis with an accuracy of 60.3% (95% CI 54.2%-66.6%). Compared to answering questions about general medical knowledge, ChatGPT demonstrated inferior performance on differential diagnosis (β=–15.8%; P<.001) and clinical management (β=–7.4%; P=.02) question types.
Conclusions
ChatGPT achieves impressive accuracy in clinical decision-making, with increasing strength as it gains more clinical information at its disposal. In particular, ChatGPT demonstrates the greatest accuracy in tasks of final diagnosis as compared to initial diagnosis. Limitations include possible model hallucinations and the unclear composition of ChatGPT’s training data set.
No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →
Kun-Hsing Yu, Andrew L. Beam, Isaac S. Kohane
Trishan Panch, Heather Mattie, Rifat Atun
Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske et al.
Hooman Hadianfard, Reza Moshfeghinia · 2026
Daniela S Espírito Santo, Thiago Lott Bezerra · 2026
Dan Nguyen, Arya Rao · 2025
Arya Rao, Andrew Mu · 2025
Arya Rao, Siona Prasad · 2025
Ryan T. Hurt, Christopher R. Stephenson · 2025
Bright Huo, Amy Boyle · 2025
Rata Rokhshad, Zaid H. Khoury · 2025
Xiaolan Chen, Jiayang Xiang · 2025
Mitchell J. Feldman, Edward P. Hoffer · 2025
Natale Vincenzo Maiorana, Sara Marceglia · 2025
Emilia Brügge, Sarah Ricchizzi · 2024
Michael S Deiner, Vlad Honcharov · 2024
Jingquan Li · 2023
- Published
- Aug 22, 2023
- Vol/Issue
- 25
- Pages
- e48659
You May Also Like
Gunther Eysenbach · 2004
5,040 citations
TRISHA GREENHALGH, Joseph Wherton · 2017
2,007 citations
S Anne Moorhead, Diane E Hazlett · 2013
1,989 citations