Toward Accurate and Actionable Differential Diagnosis with Lean LLM Orchestration
Yang, E. Y.
Show abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can assist clinicians with diagnostic reasoning, yet their autonomous diagnostic performance remains uncertain. We evaluated OpenMedicine AI, an LLM-powered diagnostic agent with a deterministic controller, on 302 New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conference (CPC) cases, a benchmark renowned for diagnostic difficulty. Models produced ranked differential-diagnosis lists. Accuracy was assessed by inclusion of the ground-truth diagnosis within the Top-n list (Top-n accuracy) and by Capture@K, an actionability metric that is "captured" if any of the Top-n differentials would appropriately lead a clinician to order the diagnostic test of record (DToR) or its immediate precursor. Across 302 CPCs, OpenMedicine AI achieved 46.0% Top-1 and 79.1% Top-10 accuracy, outperforming AMIE (32.5%, 68.9%) and physicians (15.6%, 20.9%). Paired McNemar tests confirmed superiority at all thresholds (p < 10-5). For actionability, at Capture@10 it matched or exceeded AMIE in 97.0% of cases and physicians in 96.7%. It rescued 99 of 302 cases missed by physicians (odds ratio [OR] 16.5) and 44 missed by AMIE (OR 7.3), reducing misses by 31 and 13 per 100 cases, respectively. These gains correspond to a number needed to assess (NNA) of 3.21 versus physicians and 7.95 versus AMIE. A safety margin was evident already at Capture@3, with rescues outnumbering failures to rescue versus physicians (109 vs 15; OR 7.27; 95% CI, 4.24 to 12.47; p=8.7x10-19) and versus AMIE (61 vs 15; OR 4.07; 95% CI, 2.31 to 7.15; p=9.84x10-8), corresponding to 31 and 15 fewer misses per 100 cases, respectively. These findings indicate that a lightweight, deterministic controller layered over state-of-the-art LLMs can narrow the gap between diagnostic recall and clinical actionability. By producing high-quality differentials and prioritizing rational next tests, this approach offers a scalable, resource-efficient path to improved diagnostic performance in high-complexity clinical scenarios.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 94%
- Interpretable Fine-tuned Large Language Models Facilitate Making Genetic Test Decisions for Rare Diseases 94%
- Evaluating large language model workflows in clinical decision support: referral, triage, and diagnosis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Natural Language Word-Embeddings as a glimpse into healthcare at the End Of Life 91%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 89%
- Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- CARDBiomedBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Performance in Biomedical Research 93%
- Real-world evaluation of AI-driven COVID-19 triage for emergency admissions: External validation & operational assessment of lab-free and high-throughput screening solutions 92%
- Multicenter Validation of a Machine Learning Algorithm for Diagnosing Pediatric Patients with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and Kawasaki Disease 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modular Clinical Decision Support Networks (MoDN)—Updatable, Interpretable, and Portable Predictions for Evolving Clinical Environments 93%
- Harnessing the Open Access Version of ChatGPT for Enhanced Clinical Opinions 92%
- Artificial Intelligence's Contribution to Biomedical Literature Search: Revolutionizing or Complicating? 92%
"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.