Abstract
Importance Large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence (AI) systems have shown promise in diagnostic reasoning, but their utility in management reasoning with no clear right answers is unknown.
Objective To determine whether LLM assistance improves physician performance on open-ended management reasoning tasks compared to conventional resources.
Design Prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted from 30 November 2023 to 21 April 2024.
Setting Multi-institutional study from Stanford University, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the University of Virginia involving physicians from across the United States.
Participants 92 practicing attending physicians and residents with training in internal medicine, family medicine, or emergency medicine.
Intervention Five expert-developed clinical case vignettes were presented with multiple open-ended management questions and scoring rubrics created through a Delphi process. Physicians were randomized to use either GPT-4 via ChatGPT Plus in addition to conventional resources (e.g., UpToDate, Google), or conventional resources alone.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was difference in total score between groups on expert-developed scoring rubrics. Secondary outcomes included domain-specific scores and time spent per case.
Results Physicians using the LLM scored higher compared to those using conventional resources (mean difference 6.5 %, 95% CI 2.7-10.2, p<0.001). Significant improvements were seen in management decisions (6.1%, 95% CI 2.5-9.7, p=0.001), diagnostic decisions (12.1%, 95% CI 3.1-21.0, p=0.009), and case-specific (6.2%, 95% CI 2.4-9.9, p=0.002) domains. GPT-4 users spent more time per case (mean difference 119.3 seconds, 95% CI 17.4-221.2, p=0.02). There was no significant difference between GPT-4-augmented physicians and GPT-4 alone (-0.9%, 95% CI -9.0 to 7.2, p=0.8).
Conclusions and Relevance LLM assistance improved physician management reasoning compared to conventional resources, with particular gains in contextual and patient-specific decision-making. These findings indicate that LLMs can augment management decision-making in complex cases.
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06208423;
Question Does large language model (LLM) assistance improve physician performance on complex management reasoning tasks compared to conventional resources?
Findings In this randomized controlled trial of 92 physicians, participants using GPT-4 achieved higher scores on management reasoning compared to those using conventional resources (e.g., UpToDate).
Meaning LLM assistance enhances physician management reasoning performance in complex cases with no clear right answers.
Competing Interest Statement
Drs. Goh, Hom, Strong, Cool, Kanjee, Olson, Rodman, and Chen disclose funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Dr. Gallo is supported by a VA Advanced Fellowship in Medical Informatics. Dr. Kanjee discloses Royalties from Wolters Kluwer for books edited (unrelated to this study), former paid advisory member for Wolters Kluwer on medical education products (unrelated to this study), honoraria from Oakstone Publishing for CME delivered (unrelated to this study). Dr. Parsons discloses a paid advisory role for New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Group and National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) for medical education products (unrelated to this study). Dr. Olson receives funding from 3M for research related to rural health workforce shortages. Dr. Olson receives consulting fees for work related to a clinical reasoning application from the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr Milstein reported uncompensated and compensated relationships with care.coach, Emsana Health, Embold Health, EZPT, FN Advisors, Intermountain Healthcare, JRSL, The Leapfrog Group, Peterson Center on Healthcare, Prealize Health, and PBGH. Dr. Chen reports co-founding Reaction Explorer LLC that develops and licenses organic chemistry education software as well as paid consulting fees from Sutton Pierce, Younker Hyde MacFarlane, and Sykes McAllister as a medical expert witness. Dr. Chen receives funding from NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (1R01AI17812101), NIH/National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (UG1DA015815 - CTN-0136), Stanford Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging - Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (AIMI-HAI) Partnership Grant, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation - Covid-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (20211260), Google, Inc. Research collaboration Co-I to leverage EHR data to predict a range of clinical outcomes, and the American Heart Association - Strategically Focused Research Network - Diversity in Clinical Trials.
Clinical Trial
NCT06208423
Clinical Protocols
https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06208423
Funding Statement
Drs. Goh, Hom, Strong, Cool, Kanjee, Olson, Rodman, and Chen disclose funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Dr. Gallo is supported by a VA Advanced Fellowship in Medical Informatics.
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:
This study was reviewed and determined to be exempt by institutional review boards at Stanford University, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the University of Virginia.
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