Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by physicians for diagnostic support. A key advantage of LLMs is the ability to generate explanations that can help physicians understand the reasoning behind a diagnosis. However, the best-suited format for LLM-generated explanations remains unclear. In this large-scale study, we examined the effect of different formats for LLM explanations on clinical decision-making. For this, we conducted a randomized experiment with radiologists reviewing patient cases with radiological images (N = 2020 assessments). Participants received either no LLM support (control group) or were supported by one of three LLM-generated explanations: (1) a standard output providing the diagnosis without explanation; (2) a differential diagnosis comparing multiple possible diagnoses; or (3) a chain-of-thought explanation offering a detailed reasoning process for the diagnosis. We find that the format of explanations significantly influences diagnostic accuracy. The chain-of-thought explanations yielded the best performance, improving the diagnostic accuracy by 12.2% compared to the control condition without LLM support (P = 0.001). The chain-of-thought explanations are also superior to the standard output without explanation (+7.2%; P = 0.040) and the differential diagnosis format (+9.7%; P = 0.004). Evidently, explaining the reasoning for a diagnosis helps physicians to identify and correct potential errors in LLM predictions and thus improve overall decisions. Altogether, the results highlight the importance of how explanations in medical LLMs are generated to maximize their utility in clinical practice. By designing explanations to support the reasoning processes of physicians, LLMs can improve diagnostic performance and, ultimately, patient outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://aspredicted.org/4tgb-sr3z.pdf
Funding Statement
S.F. acknowledges funding via the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), Grant 186932. The funding body had no role in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the study.
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:
Ethics Commission of Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics, and Statistics, LMU Munich gave ethical approval for this work (EK-MIS-2024-320)
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