MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407019191 · doi:10.1080/10903127.2025.2460775

Accuracy of Commercial Large Language Model (ChatGPT) to Predict the Diagnosis for Prehospital Patients Suitable for Ambulance Transport Decisions: Diagnostic Accuracy Study

2025· article· en· W4407019191 on OpenAlexaff
Eric D. Miller, Jeffrey Michael Franc, Attila J. Hertelendy, Fadi Issa, Alexander Hart, Christina A. Woodward, Bradford A. Newbury, Kiera A Newbury, Dana Mathew, Kimberly Whitten-Chung, Eric Bauer, Amalia Voskanyan, Gregory R. Ciottone

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergencyEmergency medical servicesDiagnostic accuracyEmergency medicineTriageIntensive care medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: While ambulance transport decisions guided by artificial intelligence (AI) could be useful, little is known of the accuracy of AI in making patient diagnoses based on the pre-hospital patient care report (PCR). The primary objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT (OpenAI, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) to predict a patient's diagnosis using the PCR by comparing to a reference standard assigned by experienced paramedics. The secondary objective was to classify cases where the AI diagnosis did not agree with the reference standard as paramedic correct, ChatGPT correct, or equally correct. METHODS: This diagnostic accuracy study used a zero-shot learning model and greedy decoding. A convenience sample of PCRs from paramedic students was analyzed by an untrained ChatGPT-4 model to determine the single most likely diagnosis. A reference standard was provided by an experienced paramedic reviewing each PCR and giving a differential diagnosis of three items. A trained prehospital professional assessed the ChatGPT diagnosis as concordant or non-concordant with one of the three paramedic diagnoses. If non-concordant, two board-certified emergency physicians independently decided if the ChatGPT or the paramedic diagnosis was more likely to be correct. RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 diagnosed 78/104 (75.0%) of PCRs correctly (95% confidence interval: 65.3-82.7%). Among the 26 cases of disagreement, judgment by the emergency physicians was that in 6/26 (23.0%) the paramedic diagnosis was more likely to be correct. There was only one case of the 104 (0.96%) where transport decisions based on the AI guided diagnosis would have been potentially dangerous to the patient (under-triage). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, overall accuracy of ChatGPT to diagnose patients based on their emergency medical services PCR was 75.0%. In cases where the ChatGPT diagnosis was considered less likely than paramedic diagnosis, most commonly the AI diagnosis was more critical than the paramedic diagnosis-potentially leading to over-triage. The under-triage rate was <1%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207