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confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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