Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician

Performance of large language models (LLMs) on medical tasks has traditionally been evaluated using multiple choice question benchmarks. However, such benchmarks are highly constrained, saturated with repeated impressive performance by LLMs, and have an unclear relationship to performance in real clinical scenarios. Clinical reasoning, the process by which physicians employ critical thinking to gather and synthesize clinical data to diagnose and manage medical problems, remains an attractive benchmark for model performance. Prior LLMs have shown promise in outperforming clinicians in routine and complex diagnostic scenarios. We sought to evaluate OpenAI's o1-preview model, a model developed to increase run-time via chain of thought processes prior to generating a response. We characterize the performance of o1-preview with five experiments including differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning, adjudicated by physician experts with validated psychometrics. Our primary outcome was comparison of the o1-preview output to identical prior experiments that have historical human controls and benchmarks of previous LLMs. Significant improvements were observed with differential diagnosis generation and quality of diagnostic and management reasoning. No improvements were observed with probabilistic reasoning or triage differential diagnosis. This study highlights o1-preview's ability to perform strongly on tasks that require complex critical thinking such as diagnosis and management while its performance on probabilistic reasoning tasks was similar to past models. New robust benchmarks and scalable evaluation of LLM capabilities compared to human physicians are needed along with trials evaluating AI in real clinical settings.

Accuracy of a Vision-Language Model on Challenging Medical Cases

Background: General-purpose large language models that utilize both text and images have not been evaluated on a diverse array of challenging medical cases. Methods: Using 934 cases from the NEJM Image Challenge published between 2005 and 2023, we evaluated the accuracy of the recently released Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 with Vision model (GPT-4V) compared to human respondents overall and stratified by question difficulty, image type, and skin tone. We further conducted a physician evaluation of GPT-4V on 69 NEJM clinicopathological conferences (CPCs). Analyses were conducted for models utilizing text alone, images alone, and both text and images. Results: GPT-4V achieved an overall accuracy of 61% (95% CI, 58 to 64%) compared to 49% (95% CI, 49 to 50%) for humans. GPT-4V outperformed humans at all levels of difficulty and disagreement, skin tones, and image types; the exception was radiographic images, where performance was equivalent between GPT-4V and human respondents. Longer, more informative captions were associated with improved performance for GPT-4V but similar performance for human respondents. GPT-4V included the correct diagnosis in its differential for 80% (95% CI, 68 to 88%) of CPCs when using text alone, compared to 58% (95% CI, 45 to 70%) of CPCs when using both images and text. Conclusions: GPT-4V outperformed human respondents on challenging medical cases and was able to synthesize information from both images and text, but performance deteriorated when images were added to highly informative text. Overall, our results suggest that multimodal AI models may be useful in medical diagnostic reasoning but that their accuracy may depend heavily on context.