Abstract
With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, the integration of AI into clinical medicine is becoming increasingly feasible. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of the freely available ChatGPT-3.5 to generate complex differential diagnoses, comparing its output to case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Forty case records were presented to ChatGPT-3.5, with prompts to provide a differential diagnosis and then narrow it down to the most likely diagnosis. Results indicated that the final diagnosis was included in ChatGPT-3.5’s original differential list in 42.5% of the cases. After narrowing, ChatGPT correctly determined the final diagnosis in 27.5% of the cases, demonstrating a decrease in accuracy compared to previous studies using common chief complaints. These findings emphasize the need for further investigation into the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in clinical scenarios, while highlighting the potential role of AI as an augmented clinical opinion. With anticipated growth and enhancements to AI tools like ChatGPT, physicians and other healthcare workers will likely find increasing support in generating differential diagnoses. However, continued exploration and regulation are essential to ensure the safe and effective integration of AI into healthcare practice. Future studies may seek to compare newer versions of ChatGPT or investigate patient outcomes with physician integration of this AI technology. By understanding and expanding AI’s capabilities, particularly in differential diagnosis, the medical field may foster innovation and provide additional resources, especially in underserved areas.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We have no financial disclosures to report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript.
