Towards conversational diagnostic artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At the heart of medicine lies physician–patient dialogue, where skillful history-taking enables effective diagnosis, management and enduring trust 1,2 . Artificial intelligence (AI) systems capable of diagnostic dialogue could increase accessibility and quality of care. However, approximating clinicians’ expertise is an outstanding challenge. Here we introduce AMIE (Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer), a large language model (LLM)-based AI system optimized for diagnostic dialogue. AMIE uses a self-play-based 3 simulated environment with automated feedback for scaling learning across disease conditions, specialties and contexts. We designed a framework for evaluating clinically meaningful axes of performance, including history-taking, diagnostic accuracy, management, communication skills and empathy. We compared AMIE’s performance to that of primary care physicians in a randomized, double-blind crossover study of text-based consultations with validated patient-actors similar to objective structured clinical examination 4,5 . The study included 159 case scenarios from providers in Canada, the United Kingdom and India, 20 primary care physicians compared to AMIE, and evaluations by specialist physicians and patient-actors. AMIE demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy and superior performance on 30 out of 32 axes according to the specialist physicians and 25 out of 26 axes according to the patient-actors. Our research has several limitations and should be interpreted with caution. Clinicians used synchronous text chat, which permits large-scale LLM–patient interactions, but this is unfamiliar in clinical practice. While further research is required before AMIE could be translated to real-world settings, the results represent a milestone towards conversational diagnostic AI.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".