Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) show promise in supporting differential diagnosis, but their performance is challenging to evaluate due to the unstructured nature of their responses. To assess the current capabilities of LLMs to diagnose genetic diseases, we benchmarked these models on 5,213 case reports using the Phenopacket Schema, the Human Phenotype Ontology and Mondo disease ontology. Prompts generated from each phenopacket were sent to three generative pretrained transformer (GPT) models. The same phenopackets were used as input to a widely used diagnostic tool, Exomiser, in phenotype-only mode. The best LLM ranked the correct diagnosis first in 23.6% of cases, whereas Exomiser did so in 35.5% of cases. While the performance of LLMs for supporting differential diagnosis has been improving, it has not reached the level of commonly used traditional bioinformatics tools. Future research is needed to determine the best approach to incorporate LLMs into diagnostic pipelines.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by grants 5R01HD103805-03 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 5R24OD011883-06 from the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and 5RM1 HG010860-03 from the National Human Genome Research Institute. Additional support was provided by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, and FAIR (Future Artificial Intelligence Research) project, funded by the NextGenerationEU program within the PNRR-PE-AI scheme (M4C2, Investment 1.3, Line on Artificial Intelligence) - AIDH - FAIR - PE0000013.
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:
Source data were derived exclusively from published case or cohort reports that are available through PubMed. The dataset analyzed in this work has been made available on Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12783853.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Our initial analysis was limited to testing the accuracy of GPT-4. In this revised version, we test additional LLMs, and also compare their performance to that of a standard traditional bioinformatics tool in the field, Exomiser.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online on Zenodo at: https://zenodo.org/records/14008477.
