Cited by 128Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Comparison of Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy of Ada Health and WebMD Symptom Checkers, ChatGPT, and Physicians for Patients in an Emergency Department: Clinical Data Analysis Study

Open access
Fraser, Hamish, Crossland, Daven, Bacher, Ian, Ranney, Megan, Madsen, Tracy, Hilliard, Ross·2023·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis is a core component of effective health care, but misdiagnosis is common and can put patients at risk. Diagnostic decision support systems can play a role in improving diagnosis by physicians and other health care workers. Symptom checkers (SCs) have been designed to improve diagnosis and triage (ie, which level of care to seek) by patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the new large language model ChatGPT (versions 3.5 and 4.0), the widely used WebMD SC, and an SC developed by Ada Health in the diagnosis and triage of patients with urgent or emergent clinical problems compared with the final emergency department (ED) diagnoses and physician reviews. Methods: We used previously collected, deidentified, self-report data from 40 patients presenting to an ED for care who used the Ada SC to record their symptoms prior to seeing the ED physician. Deidentified data were entered into ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and WebMD by a research assistant blinded to diagnoses and triage. Diagnoses from all 4 systems were compared with the previously abstracted final diagnoses in the ED as well as with diagnoses and triage recommendations from three independent board-certified ED physicians who had blindly reviewed the self-report clinical data from Ada. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated as the proportion of the diagnoses from ChatGPT, Ada SC, WebMD SC, and the independent physicians that matched at least one ED diagnosis (stratified as top 1 or top 3). Triage accuracy was calculated as the number of recommendations from ChatGPT, WebMD, or Ada that agreed with at least 2 of the independent physicians or were rated “unsafe” or “too cautious.” Results: Overall, 30 and 37 cases had sufficient data for diagnostic and triage analysis, respectively. The rate of top-1 diagnosis matches for Ada, ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and WebMD was 9 (30%), 12 (40%), 10 (33%), and 12 (40%), respectively, with a mean rate of 47% for the physicians. The rate of top-3 diagnostic matches for Ada, ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and WebMD was 19 (63%), 19 (63%), 15 (50%), and 17 (57%), respectively, with a mean rate of 69% for physicians. The distribution of triage results for Ada was 62% (n=23) agree, 14% unsafe (n=5), and 24% (n=9) too cautious; that for ChatGPT 3.5 was 59% (n=22) agree, 41% (n=15) unsafe, and 0% (n=0) too cautious; that for ChatGPT 4.0 was 76% (n=28) agree, 22% (n=8) unsafe, and 3% (n=1) too cautious; and that for WebMD was 70% (n=26) agree, 19% (n=7) unsafe, and 11% (n=4) too cautious. The unsafe triage rate for ChatGPT 3.5 (41%) was significantly higher (P=.009) than that of Ada (14%). Conclusions: ChatGPT 3.5 had high diagnostic accuracy but a high unsafe triage rate. ChatGPT 4.0 had the poorest diagnostic accuracy, but a lower unsafe triage rate and the highest triage agreement with the physicians. The Ada and WebMD SCs performed better overall than ChatGPT. Unsupervised patient use of ChatGPT for diagnosis and triage is not recommended without improvements to triage accuracy and extensive clinical evaluation.

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 · 10.2196/49995

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • AI is rapidly reshaping healthcare and the competencies expected of graduating medical students.

    “Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping healthcare and the competencies expected of graduating medical students”

    From What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes medical tasks ChatGPT can perform, and the Discussion’s Conclusions (page unavailable) describe its potential for diagnosis and triage. These passages support AI’s relevance to healthcare, but they do not establish that it is already rapidly reshaping healthcare or changing the competencies expected of graduating medical students. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI has enabled novel digital solutions in diagnostics, imaging, and clinical decision support and patient management.

    “AI has enabled novel digital solutions in diagnostics1–4, imaging5,6, and clinical decision support and patient management7–9.”

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
Fraser, H., Crossland, D., Bacher, I., Ranney, M., Madsen, T., & Hilliard, R.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Maine Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Fraser, Hamish
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2023-10-03
Volume
11
Pages
e49995
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386172820
Cited by
128
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 3
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Brown University
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS029513)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL140081)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM139664)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
symptom checkers, ChatGPT, large language models, emergency department triage, diagnostic accuracy, WebMD, physician diagnosis, self-reported symptoms, misdiagnosis, diagnostic decision support, emergency department visits, patient-generated health data, emergency department overcrowding
MeSH terms
Emergency Service, Hospital, Health Personnel, Humans, Physicians, Triage, Self Report

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