Assessing DxGPT: Diagnosing Rare Diseases with Various Large Language Models
do Olmo, J.; Logrono, J.; Mascias, C.; Martinez, M.; Isla, J.
Show abstract
Diagnosing rare diseases is a significant challenge in healthcare, with patients often experiencing long delays and misdiagnoses. The large number of rare diseases and the difficulty for doctors to be familiar with all of them contribute to this problem. Artificial intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs), has shown promise in improving the diagnostic process by leveraging their extensive knowledge to help doctors navigate the complexities of diagnosing rare diseases. Foundation 29 presents a comprehensive evaluation of DxGPT, a web-based platform designed to assist healthcare professionals in the diagnostic process for rare diseases. The platform currently utilizes GPT-4, but this study also compares its performance with other large language models, including Claude 3, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama, Mistral, Mixtral, and Cohere Command R+. It is crucial to emphasize that DxGPT is not a medical device but rather a decision support tool that aims to aid in clinical reasoning. This study extends beyond initial synthetic patient cases, incorporating real-world data from the RAMEDIS and Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) datasets. The analysis followed two main metrics: Strict Accuracy (P1), how often the first diagnostic suggestion agreed with the real diagnosis, and Top-5 Accuracy (P1 + P5), how often the right diagnosis was in the top five suggestions. The results show a complex picture of diagnostic accuracy, with performance varying significantly across models and datasets: O_LIOn the synthetic dataset, closed models like GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini exhibited relatively high accuracy. Open models like Llama 3 and Mixtral performed reasonably well, though lagging behind. C_LIO_LIOn the RAMEDIS rare disease cases, Claude 3 Opus model demonstrated 55% Strict Accuracy and 70% Top-5 Accuracy, outperforming other closed models. Open models like Llama 3 and Mixtral showed moderate accuracy. C_LIO_LIThe PUMCH dataset proved challenging for all models, with the highest Strict Accuracy at 59.46% (GPT-4 Turbo 1106) and Top-5 Accuracy at 64.86%. C_LI These findings demonstrate the potential of DxGPT and LLMs in improving diagnostic methods for rare diseases. However, they also emphasize the need for further validation, particularly in real-world clinical settings, and comparison with human expert diagnoses. Successful integration of AI into medical diagnostics will require collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies to ensure safety, efficacy, and ethical deployment.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cardiology Knowledge Assessment of Retrieval-Augmented Open versus Proprietary Large Language Models 95%
- From theoretical models to practical deployment: A perspective and case study of opportunities and challenges in AI-driven healthcare research for low-income settings 95%
- Evaluating Anti-LGBTQIA+ Medical Bias in Large Language Models 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Deep Learning Approach for Transgender and Gender Diverse Patient Identification in Electronic Health Records 94%
- Medication information extraction using local large language models 94%
- Developing A Deep Learning Natural Language Processing Algorithm For Automated Reporting Of Adverse Drug Reactions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Semantic Similarity Methods for Comparison of Text-derived Phenotype Profiles 96%
- Ontology-based expansion of virtual gene panels to improve diagnostic efficiency for rare genetic diseases 95%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Transformative potential of Large Language Models in data mining on Electronic Health Records. 95%
- Evaluating the impact on clinical task efficiency of a natural language processing algorithm for searching medical documents: Prospective crossover study 94%
- FHIR-DHP: A Standardized Clinical Data Harmonisation Pipeline for scalable AI application deployment 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.