Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

ChatGPT as a medical doctor? A diagnostic accuracy study on common and rare diseases

Lars Mehnen, Stefanie Gruarin, Mina Vasileva, View ORCID ProfileBernhard Knapp
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859
Lars Mehnen
1University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien, Department of Computer Science, Competence Field for Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefanie Gruarin
2Equolibri, Artificial Intelligence Department, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mina Vasileva
2Equolibri, Artificial Intelligence Department, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bernhard Knapp
4University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien, Department of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence Engineering Program, Vienna, Austria
Roles: Independent researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bernhard Knapp
  • For correspondence: knapp{at}technikum-wien.at
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Seeking medical advice online has become popular in the recent past. Therefore a growing number of people might ask the recently hyped ChatGPT for medical information regarding their conditions, symptoms and differential diagnosis. In this paper we tested ChatGPT for its diagnostic accuracy on a total of 50 clinical case vignettes including 10 rare case presentations. We found that ChatGPT 4 solves all common cases within 2 suggested diagnoses. For rare disease conditions ChatGPT 4 needs 8 or more suggestions to solve 90% of all cases. The performance of ChatGPT 3.5 is consistently lower than the performance of ChatGPT 4. We also compared the performance between ChatGPT and human medical doctors. We conclude that ChatGPT might be a good tool to assist human medical doctors in diagnosing difficult cases, but despite the good diagnostic accuracy, ChatGPT should be used with caution by non-professionals.

Competing Interest Statement

SG and BK are former employees of the symptom checker company Symptoma. The former employer had no role in the study design, analysis or interpretation of the data.

Funding Statement

No specific funding was obtained for this work. LM and BK were paid by faculty funding of the University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien. SG and MV did not receive payment for this work and participated out of interest.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Semigran HL, Linder JA, Gidengil C, Mehrotra A. Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study. BMJ. 2015;351: h3480. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3480 orpha.net. Orphanet: About rare diseases. [cited 15 Apr 2023]. Available: https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/Education_AboutRareDiseases.php?lng=EN

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Higher quality figures; inclusion of MD1-3 results in figure 1+2; extension of the discussion

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 27, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
ChatGPT as a medical doctor? A diagnostic accuracy study on common and rare diseases
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
ChatGPT as a medical doctor? A diagnostic accuracy study on common and rare diseases
Lars Mehnen, Stefanie Gruarin, Mina Vasileva, Bernhard Knapp
medRxiv 2023.04.20.23288859; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
ChatGPT as a medical doctor? A diagnostic accuracy study on common and rare diseases
Lars Mehnen, Stefanie Gruarin, Mina Vasileva, Bernhard Knapp
medRxiv 2023.04.20.23288859; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (430)
  • Allergy and Immunology (756)
  • Anesthesia (221)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3289)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (364)
  • Dermatology (277)
  • Emergency Medicine (479)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1170)
  • Epidemiology (13365)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (898)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5152)
  • Geriatric Medicine (482)
  • Health Economics (782)
  • Health Informatics (3264)
  • Health Policy (1140)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1190)
  • Hematology (429)
  • HIV/AIDS (1017)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14624)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (912)
  • Medical Education (476)
  • Medical Ethics (127)
  • Nephrology (522)
  • Neurology (4922)
  • Nursing (262)
  • Nutrition (729)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (883)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (795)
  • Oncology (2520)
  • Ophthalmology (723)
  • Orthopedics (281)
  • Otolaryngology (347)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (543)
  • Pediatrics (1301)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (550)
  • Primary Care Research (556)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4206)
  • Public and Global Health (7501)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1705)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1012)
  • Respiratory Medicine (980)
  • Rheumatology (479)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (497)
  • Sports Medicine (424)
  • Surgery (548)
  • Toxicology (72)
  • Transplantation (236)
  • Urology (205)