Abstract:When the results of the Goh et al study 1 were presented at a recent National Academies of Medicine meeting, the audience was amazed—and concerned. The randomized clinical trial assessed diagnostic performance by generalist physicians, who were asked to provide diagnoses for 6 simulated cases using either conventional online resources or a large language model (LLM) (ChatGPT Plus [GPT-4]; OpenAI) in addition to standard resources. The study also evaluated the ability of the LLM to solve the cases alone. The authors developed a rubric for measuring diagnostic performance in which blinded experts evaluated participants' overall clinical reasoning process, including their proposed final diagnosis, their differential diagnosis, and factors supporting or opposing the diagnoses on their list. The study's principal finding was that physicians who had access to the LLM scored no better than the group who only used conventional resources. But the result that prompted consternation was the performance of the LLM alone, which scored significantly higher than either group of physicians. On hearing these results, more than one audience member wondered aloud, "Are we going to be out of a job?" The Goh et al trial 1 is an important advance in the study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnosis. By examining how clinicians use GPT-4 without specific training in use of the LLM, the study provides a realistic assessment of how clinicians use these tools in actual practice—both now and for the foreseeable future. Measuring the quality of the diagnostic process, rather than simply evaluating the accuracy of their final diagnosis, is a nuanced approach that provides a more accurate assessment of diagnostic reasoning. Future studies of diagnostic reasoning should use this method. The study demonstrates that access to generative AI alone will not improve diagnostic outcomes; clinicians will require training to use these resources to their full potential. The authors appropriately caution that the results of this study "should not be interpreted to indicate that LLMs should be used for diagnosis autonomously without physician oversight," 1 but the finding that the LLM outperformed physicians will almost certainly be the headline finding. Since making diagnoses is central to clinician's professional identity, it is not surprising that the prospect of using LLM for diagnosis evokes both excitement and trepidation. As more studies are published demonstrating the diagnostic capabilities of LLMs, what does this mean for clinicians? There are reasons to be skeptical that the performance of LLMs on simulated cases can generalize to the clinical practice setting environment. The study's cases were representative of common general practice diagnoses but are presented in an orderly fashion with the relevant history, physical examination, laboratory, and imaging results necessary to construct a prioritized differential diagnosis. Diagnosis in the clinical setting is an iterative—and complicated—process that takes place amid many competing demands and requires input from the patient, caregivers, and multiple clinicians in addition to objective data. Far from a linear process, diagnosis in the clinical practice setting involves progressively refining diagnoses based on new information, and the distinction between diagnosis and treatment is often blurred as clinicians incorporate treatment response into diagnostic reasoning. How do LLMs perform at diagnosis under conditions closer to actual clinical practice? A recent study 2 evaluated the performance of LLMs on diagnosing and developing management plans for 4 common abdominal conditions, using a dataset consisting of anonymized real patient data. Information was presented to the LLM in a stepwise manner, and after each step, the LLM was asked to summarize the information and provide a diagnosis or request additional testing. Once the LLM provided a diagnosis, it was required to recommend a treatment plan. When confronted with this realistic clinical decision-making scenario, LLMs performed poorly: significantly worse than physicians for all but the simplest diagnoses. The LLMs also failed to consistently request appropriate diagnostic testing and frequently made incorrect treatment recommendations even after arriving at the correct diagnosis. Continued refinement of LLMs may eventually address these limitations, and this may happen quickly given the rapidity with which the performance of LLMs has improved. But even if LLMs prove to be capable of iterative diagnosis based on evolving information, will they reduce harm from diagnostic errors? Here again, some skepticism is warranted. As with all adverse events, missed and delayed diagnoses occur due to underlying system failures (latent errors) that allow errors made by individuals (active errors) to reach the patient and cause harm. The powe -Abstract Truncated-

Enhancing Health Care Communication With Large Language Models

Generative AI for Patient-Friendly Language in Discharge Summaries

Evaluating Large Language Models for Drafting Emergency Department Discharge Summaries

Physician- and Large Language Model-Generated Hospital Discharge Summaries: A Blinded, Comparative Quality and Safety Study

Critical Care Studies Using Large Language Models Based on Electronic Healthcare Records: A Technical Note

A Comparative Study of Recent Large Language Models on Generating Hospital Discharge Summaries for Lung Cancer Patients

A pilot feasibility study comparing large language models in extracting key information from ICU patient text records from an Irish population

Comparison of the Quality of Discharge Letters Written by Large Language Models and Junior Clinicians: Single-Blinded Study

Patient-Representing Population's Perceptions of GPT-Generated Versus Standard Emergency Department Discharge Instructions: Randomized Blind Survey Assessment

Large language models can support generation of standardized discharge summaries – A retrospective study utilizing ChatGPT-4 and electronic health records

Retrieval-Augmented and Knowledge-Grounded Language Models for Faithful Clinical Medicine

Systematic Review of Large Language Models for Patient Care: Current Applications and Challenges

The rise of artificial intelligence-driven health communication

Adapted large language models can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization

The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study

Accuracy, Consistency, and Hallucination of Large Language Models When Analyzing Unstructured Clinical Notes in Electronic Medical Records.

Revolutionizing Cardiology With Words: Unveiling the Impact of Large Language Models in Medical Science Writing

Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Knowledge-Grounded Reasoning for Faithful Patient Discharge Instructions

A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation

Large Language Models—Misdiagnosing Diagnostic Excellence?