Cited by 130Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

ChatGPT-Generated Differential Diagnosis Lists for Complex Case–Derived Clinical Vignettes: Diagnostic Accuracy Evaluation

Open access
Hirosawa, Takanobu, Kawamura, Ren, Harada, Yukinori, Mizuta, Kazuya, Tokumasu, Kazuki, Kaji, Yuki, Suzuki, Tomoharu, Shimizu, Taro·2023·JMIR Medical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: The diagnostic accuracy of differential diagnoses generated by artificial intelligence chatbots, including ChatGPT models, for complex clinical vignettes derived from general internal medicine (GIM) department case reports is unknown. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the differential diagnosis lists generated by both third-generation ChatGPT (ChatGPT-3.5) and fourth-generation ChatGPT (ChatGPT-4) by using case vignettes from case reports published by the Department of GIM of Dokkyo Medical University Hospital, Japan. Methods: We searched PubMed for case reports. Upon identification, physicians selected diagnostic cases, determined the final diagnosis, and displayed them into clinical vignettes. Physicians typed the determined text with the clinical vignettes in the ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 prompts to generate the top 10 differential diagnoses. The ChatGPT models were not specially trained or further reinforced for this task. Three GIM physicians from other medical institutions created differential diagnosis lists by reading the same clinical vignettes. We measured the rate of correct diagnosis within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists, top 5 differential diagnosis lists, and the top diagnosis. Results: In total, 52 case reports were analyzed. The rates of correct diagnosis by ChatGPT-4 within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists, top 5 differential diagnosis lists, and top diagnosis were 83% (43/52), 81% (42/52), and 60% (31/52), respectively. The rates of correct diagnosis by ChatGPT-3.5 within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists, top 5 differential diagnosis lists, and top diagnosis were 73% (38/52), 65% (34/52), and 42% (22/52), respectively. The rates of correct diagnosis by ChatGPT-4 were comparable to those by physicians within the top 10 (43/52, 83% vs 39/52, 75%, respectively; P=.47) and within the top 5 (42/52, 81% vs 35/52, 67%, respectively; P=.18) differential diagnosis lists and top diagnosis (31/52, 60% vs 26/52, 50%, respectively; P=.43) although the difference was not significant. The ChatGPT models’ diagnostic accuracy did not significantly vary based on open access status or the publication date (before 2011 vs 2022). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the potential diagnostic accuracy of differential diagnosis lists generated using ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 for complex clinical vignettes from case reports published by the GIM department. The rate of correct diagnoses within the top 10 and top 5 differential diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-4 exceeds 80%. Although derived from a limited data set of case reports from a single department, our findings highlight the potential utility of ChatGPT-4 as a supplementary tool for physicians, particularly for those affiliated with the GIM department. Further investigations should explore the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT by using distinct case materials beyond its training data. Such efforts will provide a comprehensive insight into the role of artificial intelligence in enhancing clinical decision-making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/48808

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ChatGPT demonstrates strong performance on straightforward cases but reduced reliability in mixed acid-base disorders typical of critically ill ICU populations.

    “ChatGPT demonstrates strong performance on straightforward cases but reduced reliability in mixed acid–base disorders typical of critically ill ICU populations9.”

    From Structural error asymmetry and harm-weighted analysis of ChatGPT versus ICU Physicians in acid–base interpretation: a prospective observational study (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    In “Comparison With Prior Work” (page not provided), the paper reports lower ChatGPT-3.5 diagnostic accuracy for complex general-internal-medicine vignettes than for more common clinical presentations. It does not examine mixed acid–base disorders or critically ill ICU patients, so the claim’s specific application to those cases is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Performance declines with increasing complexity.

    “This confirms prior observations that performance declines with increasing complexity3,9.”

    From Structural error asymmetry and harm-weighted analysis of ChatGPT versus ICU Physicians in acid–base interpretation: a prospective observational study (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    In “Comparison With Prior Work” (page not specified), the paper reports lower diagnostic accuracy for ChatGPT-3.5 on its complex vignettes than in a prior study of more common presentations, and largely attributes the difference to case complexity. That supports the observation for ChatGPT-3.5, but not an unqualified decline in performance across models or settings. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hirosawa, T., Kawamura, R., Harada, Y., Mizuta, K., Tokumasu, K., Kaji, Y., Suzuki, T., & Shimizu, T.
Affiliations
  • Dokkyo Medical University (JP)
  • Okayama University (JP)
  • International University of Health and Welfare Narita Hospital (JP)
  • Urasoe General Hospital (JP)
Corresponding author
Hirosawa, Takanobu
Venue
JMIR Medical Informatics
Published
2023-10-09
Volume
11
Pages
e48808
ISSN
2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386710076
Cited by
130
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 4
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (22K10421)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
ChatGPT, differential diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, clinical vignettes, artificial intelligence in healthcare, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, general internal medicine, physician comparison, large language models, clinical decision support, physician-patient communication, medical education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review