PreprintCited by 316Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Towards Accurate Differential Diagnosis with Large Language Models

Open access
McDuff, Daniel, Schaekermann, Mike, Tu, Tao, Palepu, Anil, Wang, Amy, Garrison, Jake, Singhal, Karan, Sharma, Yash +20 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

An accurate differential diagnosis (DDx) is a cornerstone of medical care, often reached through an iterative process of interpretation that combines clinical history, physical examination, investigations and procedures. Interactive interfaces powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to both assist and automate aspects of this process. In this study, we introduce an LLM optimized for diagnostic reasoning, and evaluate its ability to generate a DDx alone or as an aid to clinicians. 20 clinicians evaluated 302 challenging, real-world medical cases sourced from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) case reports. Each case report was read by two clinicians, who were randomized to one of two assistive conditions: either assistance from search engines and standard medical resources, or LLM assistance in addition to these tools. All clinicians provided a baseline, unassisted DDx prior to using the respective assistive tools. Our LLM for DDx exhibited standalone performance that exceeded that of unassisted clinicians (top-10 accuracy 59.1% vs 33.6%, [p = 0.04]). Comparing the two assisted study arms, the DDx quality score was higher for clinicians assisted by our LLM (top-10 accuracy 51.7%) compared to clinicians without its assistance (36.1%) (McNemar's Test: 45.7, p < 0.01) and clinicians with search (44.4%) (4.75, p = 0.03). Further, clinicians assisted by our LLM arrived at more comprehensive differential lists than those without its assistance. Our study suggests that our LLM for DDx has potential to improve clinicians' diagnostic reasoning and accuracy in challenging cases, meriting further real-world evaluation for its ability to empower physicians and widen patients' access to specialist-level expertise.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2312.00164

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?

  • The LLM alone performed significantly better than both groups of humans.

    “An unexpected secondary result was that the LLM alone performed significantly better than both groups of humans, similar to a recent study with different LLM technology.31”

    From Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results (p. 6) say the LLM’s accuracy exceeded clinicians’ scores in every condition, but report a statistically significant difference only against unassisted clinicians (p = 0.04). Table 1 (p. 8) also shows higher model-only accuracy than human accuracy, but does not establish significance against both human groups. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The study included 6 cases that could feasibly be completed within a single study session while remaining comparable to standard practices in national licensing and objective structured clinical examinations.

    “Our study included 6 cases that could feasibly be completed within a single study session while remaining comparable to standard practices in national licensing and objective structured clinical examinations to use a small, but broad sample of clinical cases.6,46,47,48,49”

    From Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

    The six cases are described as belonging to the citing authors’ own study, not McDuff et al.’s. McDuff et al. describe a set of 302 cases spanning medical specialties (Section 2, p. 3), but our copy does not address whether six cases can be completed in one session or are comparable to national licensing or objective structured clinical examinations. Searches for those terms and for six cases found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [6]6. OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report 2023. arXiv: 2303.08774 [cs.CL] . · arXiv
  2. [13]13. Buckley, T., Diao, J. A., Rodman, A. & Manrai, A. K. Accuracy of a Vision-Language Model on Challenging Medical Cases 2023. arXiv: 2311.05591 [cs.CV] . · arXiv
  3. [17]17. Hong, J., Levine, S. & Dragan, A. Zero-Shot Goal-Directed Dialogue via RL on Imagined Conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05584 (2023). · arXiv
  4. [21]21. Miller, R. A., Pople Jr, H. E. & Myers, J. D. in Computer-assisted medical decision making 139-158 (Springer, 1985).
  5. [30]30. Umapathi, L. K., Pal, A. & Sankarasubbu, M. Med-halt: Medical domain hallucination test for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15343 (2023). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McDuff, D., Schaekermann, M., Tu, T., Palepu, A., Wang, A., Garrison, J., Singhal, K., Sharma, Y., Azizi, S., Kulkarni, K., Hou, L., Cheng, Y., Liu, Y., Mahdavi, S. S., Prakash, S., Pathak, A., Semturs, C., Patel, S., Webster, D. R., Dominowska, E., Gottweis, J., Barral, J., Chou, K., Corrado, G. S., Matias, Y., Sunshine, J., Karthikesalingam, A., & Natarajan, V.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Google (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Google (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
  • McDuff, Daniel
  • Schaekermann, Mike
  • Karthikesalingam, Alan
  • Natarajan, Vivek
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
642
Issue
8067
Pages
451-457
ISSN
0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409283616
Cited by
311
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 172 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 31
FWCI
67.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Massachusetts Medical Society
  • DeepMind
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
differential diagnosis, large language models, diagnostic reasoning, clinical decision support, clinician performance, AI-assisted diagnosis, medical knowledge retrieval
MeSH terms
Case Reports as Topic, Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Language

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