Assessing the medical reasoning skills of GPT-4 in complex ophthalmology cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study assesses the proficiency of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4 in answering questions about complex clinical ophthalmology cases. METHODS: Ophthalmology Clinical Challenges, and prompted the model to determine the diagnosis (open-ended question) and identify the next-step (multiple-choice question). We generated responses using two zero-shot prompting strategies, including zero-shot plan-and-solve+ (PS+), to improve the reasoning of the model. We compared the best-performing model to human graders in a benchmarking effort. RESULTS: Using PS+ prompting, GPT-4 achieved mean accuracies of 48.0% (95% CI (43.1% to 52.9%)) and 63.0% (95% CI (58.2% to 67.6%)) in diagnosis and next step, respectively. Next-step accuracy did not significantly differ by subspecialty (p=0.44). However, diagnostic accuracy in pathology and tumours was significantly higher than in uveitis (p=0.027). When the diagnosis was accurate, 75.2% (95% CI (68.6% to 80.9%)) of the next steps were correct. Conversely, when the diagnosis was incorrect, 50.2% (95% CI (43.8% to 56.6%)) of the next steps were accurate. The next step was three times more likely to be accurate when the initial diagnosis was correct (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making between board-certified ophthalmologists and GPT-4. Among trainees, senior residents outperformed GPT-4 in diagnostic accuracy (p≤0.001 and 0.049) and in accuracy of next step (p=0.002 and 0.020). CONCLUSION: Improved prompting enhances GPT-4's performance in complex clinical situations, although it does not surpass ophthalmology trainees in our context. Specialised large language models hold promise for future assistance in medical decision-making and diagnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".