ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
The Diagnostic Ability of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 in Surgery: Comparative Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Care and Clinical Decision Support: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- AI-powered Chatbot integration for enhanced accessibility of electronic health records in a pediatric hospital.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Performance of successive generative pretrained transformers (GPT) models in medical cases and board style questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multimodal large language models for oral lesion diagnosis: a systematic review of diagnostic performance and clinical utility.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Evaluating large language models' performance in answering common questions on drug-induced liver injury.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- The performance of ChatGPT on medical image-based assessments and implications for medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Chatbot Responses to Text-Based Multiple-Choice Questions in Prosthodontic and Restorative Dentistry.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Medical Diagnostics: Scoping Review With Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Large language models in perioperative medicine-applications and future prospects: a narrative review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Providing Patient Education for Chinese Patients With Ocular Myasthenia Gravis: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The Vast Potential of ChatGPT in Pediatric Surgery.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT (OpenAI) has shown great potential in clinical diagnosis and could become an excellent auxiliary tool in clinical practice. This study investigates and evaluates ChatGPT in diagnostic capabilities by comparing the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 across model iterations.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the precise diagnostic ability of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 for colon cancer and its potential as an auxiliary diagnostic tool for surgeons and compare the diagnostic accuracy rates between GTP-3.5 and GPT-4.0. We precisely assess the accuracy of primary and secondary diagnoses and analyze the causes of misdiagnoses in GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 according to 7 categories: patient histories, symptoms, physical signs, laboratory examinations, imaging examinations, pathological examinations, and intraoperative findings.
methodsWe retrieved 316 case reports for intestinal cancer from the Chinese Medical Association Publishing House database, of which 286 cases were deemed valid after data cleansing. The cases were translated from Mandarin to English and then input into GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 using a simple, direct prompt to elicit primary and secondary diagnoses. We conducted a comparative study to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5. Three senior surgeons from the General Surgery Department, specializing in Colorectal Surgery, assessed the diagnostic information at the Chinese PLA (People's Liberation Army) General Hospital. The accuracy of primary and secondary diagnoses was scored based on predefined criteria. Additionally, we analyzed and compared the causes of misdiagnoses in both models according to 7 categories: patient histories, symptoms, physical signs, laboratory examinations, imaging examinations, pathological examinations, and intraoperative findings.
resultsOut of 286 cases, GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5 both demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for primary diagnoses, but the accuracy rates of GPT-4.0 were significantly higher than GPT-3.5 (mean 0.972, SD 0.137 vs mean 0.855, SD 0.335; t
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that ChatGPT, particularly GPT-4.0, possesses significant diagnostic potential, with GPT-4.0 exhibiting higher accuracy than GPT-3.5. However, GPT-4.0 still has limitations, particularly in recognizing patient symptoms and laboratory data, indicating a need for more research in real-world clinical settings to enhance its diagnostic capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.