Comparative Study to Evaluate the Accuracy of Differential Diagnosis Lists Generated by Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard for a Case Report Series Analysis: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) systems by Google have recently been updated from Bard to Gemini and Gemini Advanced as of December 2023. Gemini is a basic, free-to-use model after a user's login, while Gemini Advanced operates on a more advanced model requiring a fee-based subscription. These systems have the potential to enhance medical diagnostics. However, the impact of these updates on comprehensive diagnostic accuracy remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the differential diagnosis lists generated by Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard across comprehensive medical fields using case report series. METHODS: We identified a case report series with relevant final diagnoses published in the American Journal Case Reports from January 2022 to March 2023. After excluding nondiagnostic cases and patients aged 10 years and younger, we included the remaining case reports. After refining the case parts as case descriptions, we input the same case descriptions into Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard to generate the top 10 differential diagnosis lists. In total, 2 expert physicians independently evaluated whether the final diagnosis was included in the lists and its ranking. Any discrepancies were resolved by another expert physician. Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust the P values for the number of comparisons among 3 GAI systems, setting the corrected significance level at P value <.02. RESULTS: In total, 392 case reports were included. The inclusion rates of the final diagnosis within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists were 73% (286/392) for Gemini Advanced, 76.5% (300/392) for Gemini, and 68.6% (269/392) for Bard. The top diagnoses matched the final diagnoses in 31.6% (124/392) for Gemini Advanced, 42.6% (167/392) for Gemini, and 31.4% (123/392) for Bard. Gemini demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than Bard both within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists (P=.02) and as the top diagnosis (P=.001). In addition, Gemini Advanced achieved significantly lower accuracy than Gemini in identifying the most probable diagnosis (P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that Gemini outperformed Bard in diagnostic accuracy following the model update. However, Gemini Advanced requires further refinement to optimize its performance for future artificial intelligence-enhanced diagnostics. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and considered primarily for research purposes, as these GAI systems have not been adjusted for medical diagnostics nor approved for clinical use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".