Abstract:Background: Accurate medical advice is paramount in ensuring optimal patient care, and misinformation can lead to misguided decisions with potentially detrimental health outcomes. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's GPT-4 has spurred interest in their potential health care applications, particularly in automated medical consultation. Yet, rigorous investigations comparing their performance to human experts remain sparse. Objective: This study aims to compare the medical accuracy of GPT-4 with human experts in providing medical advice using real-world user-generated queries, with a specific focus on cardiology. It also sought to analyze the performance of GPT-4 and human experts in specific question categories, including drug or medication information and preliminary diagnoses. Methods: We collected 251 pairs of cardiology-specific questions from general users and answers from human experts via an internet portal. GPT-4 was tasked with generating responses to the same questions. Three independent cardiologists (SL, JHK, and JJC) evaluated the answers provided by both human experts and GPT-4. Using a computer interface, each evaluator compared the pairs and determined which answer was superior, and they quantitatively measured the clarity and complexity of the questions as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the responses, applying a 3-tiered grading scale (low, medium, and high). Furthermore, a linguistic analysis was conducted to compare the length and vocabulary diversity of the responses using word count and type-token ratio. Results: GPT-4 and human experts displayed comparable efficacy in medical accuracy ("GPT-4 is better" at 132/251, 52.6% vs "Human expert is better" at 119/251, 47.4%). In accuracy level categorization, humans had more high-accuracy responses than GPT-4 (50/237, 21.1% vs 30/238, 12.6%) but also a greater proportion of low-accuracy responses (11/237, 4.6% vs 1/238, 0.4%; P=.001). GPT-4 responses were generally longer and used a less diverse vocabulary than those of human experts, potentially enhancing their comprehensibility for general users (sentence count: mean 10.9, SD 4.2 vs mean 5.9, SD 3.7; P<.001; type-token ratio: mean 0.69, SD 0.07 vs mean 0.79, SD 0.09; P<.001). Nevertheless, human experts outperformed GPT-4 in specific question categories, notably those related to drug or medication information and preliminary diagnoses. These findings highlight the limitations of GPT-4 in providing advice based on clinical experience. Conclusions: GPT-4 has shown promising potential in automated medical consultation, with comparable medical accuracy to human experts. However, challenges remain particularly in the realm of nuanced clinical judgment. Future improvements in LLMs may require the integration of specific clinical reasoning pathways and regulatory oversight for safe use. Further research is needed to understand the full potential of LLMs across various medical specialties and conditions.

The Role of Physical Exam Data

Large Language Models for Intraoperative Decision Support in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison between ChatGPT-4 and Gemini

Assessing Large Language Models in the Classification and Management of Hand Injuries

The Performance of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Ultra 1.0 for Quality Assurance Review in Emergency Medical Services Chest Pain Calls

Artificial Intelligence in Postoperative Care: Assessing Large Language Models for Patient Recommendations in Plastic Surgery

The Case Records of ChatGPT: Language Models and Complex Clinical Questions

Evaluating Capabilities of Large Language Models: Performance of GPT4 on Surgical Knowledge Assessments

Influence of a Large Language Model on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Vignette Study

Evaluating capabilities of large language models: Performance of GPT-4 on surgical knowledge assessments

Testing the Limits of Language Models: A Conversational Framework for Medical AI Assessment

Evaluating the accuracy of a state-of-the-art large language model for prediction of admissions from the emergency room

O87: Stratified Evaluation of Large Language Model GPT-4’s Question-Answering In Surgery reveals AI Knowledge Gaps

Evaluating the use of large language models to provide clinical recommendations in the Emergency Department

The potential and pitfalls of using a large language model such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, or LLaMA as a clinical assistant.

Comparative Evaluation of AI Models Such as ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini in Neuroradiology Diagnostics

On the limitations of large language models in clinical diagnosis

Measured Performance and Healthcare Professional Perception of Large Language Models Used as Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Scoping Review

Assessing GPT-4's Performance in Delivering Medical Advice: Comparative Analysis With Human Experts

Utility and Comparative Performance of Current Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models as Postoperative Medical Support Chatbots in Aesthetic Surgery

Stratified Evaluation of GPT's Question Answering in Surgery Reveals Artificial Intelligence (AI) Knowledge Gaps

AI as a Medical Ally: Evaluating ChatGPT's Usage and Impact in Indian Healthcare