Back

Diagnostic Performance of Claude 3 from Patient History and Key Images in Diagnosis Please Cases.

Kurokawa, R.; Ohizumi, Y.; Kanzawa, J.; Kurokawa, M.; Kiguchi, T.; Gonoi, W.; Abe, O.

2024-04-14 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.04.11.24305622
Show abstract

BackgroundsLarge language artificial intelligence models have showed its diagnostic performance based solely on textual information from clinical history and imaging findings. However, the extent of their performance when utilizing radiological images and providing differential diagnoses has yet to be investigated. PurposeWe employed the latest version of Claude 3, Opus, released on March 4, 2024, to investigate its diagnostic performance in answering Radiologys Diagnosis Please quiz questions under three conditions: (1) when provided with clinical history alone; (2) when given clinical history along with imaging findings; and (3) when supplied with clinical history and key images. Furthermore, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the model when instructed to list differential diagnoses. Materials and MethodsClaude 3 Opus was tasked with listing the primary diagnosis and two differential diagnoses for 322 quiz questions from Radiologys "Diagnosis Please" cases, which included cases 1 to 322, published from 1998 to 2023. The analyses were carried out under the following input conditions: Condition 1: Submitter-provided clinical history (text) alone Condition 2: Submitter-provided clinical history and imaging findings (text) Condition 3: Submitter-provided clinical history (text) and key images (PDF files) We applied McNemars tests to evaluate differences in correct response rates for primary diagnoses across Conditions 1, 2, and 3. ResultsThe correct primary diagnoses rates were 62/322 (19.3%), 178/322 (55.3%), and 93/322 (28.8%) for Conditions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Additionally, Claude 3 Opus accurately provided the correct answer as a differential diagnosis in up to 22/322 (6.8%) of cases. There were statistically significant differences in correct response rates for primary diagnoses between all combinations of Conditions 1, 2, and 3 (p<0.001). ConclusionClaude 3 Opus demonstrated significantly improved diagnostic performance by inputting key images in addition to clinical history. The ability to list important differential diagnoses was also confirmed. Key ResultsO_LIThis study investigated Claude 3 Opuss performance in Radiology Diagnosis Please Cases using clinical history, key images, and imaging findings. C_LIO_LIKey images or imaging findings inputs significantly improved correct primary diagnoses from 19.3% to 28.8% or 55.5%, respectively. C_LIO_LIBy having two additional differential diagnoses presented, total correct responses improved by 3.1-6.8%. C_LI Summary statementLarge language AI model Claude 3 Opus demonstrated significantly improved diagnostic accuracy by adding key images with clinical history compared with clinical history alone.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 42%
12.1%
3
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 17%
9.5%
4
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 3%
4.9%
5
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 4%
4.2%
6
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 1.0%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 1%
3.1%
8
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 5%
3.1%
9
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 4%
2.7%
10
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 2%
2.5%
11
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
based on 11 papers
Top 0.9%
2.0%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 9%
1.7%
13
Annals of Translational Medicine
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
14
Brain and Behavior
based on 19 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
based on 18 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
16
JMIRx Med
based on 29 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
based on 10 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Neuro-Oncology Advances
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
19
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.9%
20
BMC Cancer
based on 21 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Scientific Data
based on 30 papers
Top 3%
0.9%
22
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 5%
0.9%
23
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
27
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Medicine
based on 29 papers
Top 8%
0.7%
29
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
based on 12 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.7%