Back

Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of large language models in assisting with pediatric differential diagnoses: A multicenter diagnostic study

Mansoor, M. A.; Ibrahim, A. F.; Grindem, D. J.; Baig, A.

2024-08-10 pediatrics Community evaluation
10.1101/2024.08.09.24311777 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceLarge language models, such as GPT-3, have shown potential in assisting with clinical decision-making, but their accuracy and reliability in pediatric differential diagnosis in rural healthcare settings remain underexplored. ObjectiveEvaluate the performance of a fine-tuned GPT-3 model in assisting with pediatric differential diagnosis in rural healthcare settings and compare its accuracy to human physicians. MethodsRetrospective cohort study using data from a multicenter rural pediatric healthcare organization in Central Louisiana serving approximately 15,000 patients. Data from 500 pediatric patient encounters (age range: 0-18 years) between March 2023 and January 2024 were collected and split into training (70%, n=350) and testing (30%, n=150) sets. InterventionsGPT-3 model (DaVinci version) fine-tuned using OpenAI API on training data for ten epochs. Main Outcomes and MeasuresAccuracy of fine-tuned GPT-3 model in generating differential diagnoses, evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1 score, and overall accuracy. The models performance was compared to human physicians on the testing set. ResultsThe fine-tuned GPT-3 model achieved an accuracy of 87% (131/150) on the testing set, with a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 90%, precision of 88%, and F1 score of 0.87. The models performance was comparable to human physicians (accuracy 91%; P = .47). Conclusions and RelevanceThe fine-tuned GPT-3 model demonstrated high accuracy and reliability in assisting with pediatric differential diagnosis, with performance comparable to human physicians. Large language models could be valuable tools for supporting clinical decision-making in resource-constrained environments. Further research should explore implementation in various clinical workflows.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.