RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic Performance of Generative AI and Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.01.20.24301563
DO 10.1101/2024.01.20.24301563
A1 Takita, Hirotaka
A1 Walston, Shannon L
A1 Tatekawa, Hiroyuki
A1 Saito, Kenichi
A1 Tsujimoto, Yasushi
A1 Miki, Yukio
A1 Ueda, Daiju
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/22/2024.01.20.24301563.abstract
AB Background The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized understanding and generation of human language. Their integration into healthcare has shown potential for improving medical diagnostics, yet a comprehensive diagnostic performance evaluation of generative AI models and the comparison of their diagnostic performance with that of physicians has not been extensively explored.Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a comprehensive search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and medRxiv was conducted for studies published from June 2018 through December 2023, focusing on those that validate generative AI models for diagnostic tasks. Meta-analysis was performed to summarize the performance of the models and to compare the accuracy of the models with that of physicians. The quality of studies was assessed using the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.Results The search resulted in 54 studies being included in the meta-analysis, with 13 of these also used in the comparative analysis. Eight models were evaluated across 17 medical specialties. The overall accuracy for generative AI models across 54 studies was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51–63%). The I-squared statistic of 96% signifies a high degree of heterogeneity among the study results. Meta-regression analysis of generative AI models revealed significantly improved accuracy for GPT-4, and reduced accuracy for some specialties such as Neurology, Endocrinology, Rheumatology, and Radiology. The comparison meta-analysis demonstrated that, on average, physicians exceeded the accuracy of the models (difference in accuracy: 14% [95% CI: 8–19%], p-value <0.001). However, in the performance comparison between GPT-4 and physicians, GPT-4 performed slightly higher than non-experts (–4% [95% CI: –10–2%], p-value = 0.173), and slightly underperformed compared to experts (6% [95% CI: –1–13%], p-value = 0.091). The quality assessment indicated a high risk of bias in the majority of studies, primarily due to small sample sizes.Conclusions Generative AI exhibits promising diagnostic capabilities, with accuracy varying significantly by model and medical specialty. Although they have not reached the reliability of expert physicians, the findings suggest that generative AI models have the potential to enhance healthcare delivery and medical education, provided they are integrated with caution and their limitations are well-understood. This study also highlights the need for more rigorous research standards and a larger number of cases in the future.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThere was no funding provided for this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This is a systematic-review and meta-analysis. All data used in this paper are described in the References section.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.