MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412837419 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325803

Evaluation of large language models as a diagnostic tool for medical learners and clinicians using advanced prompting techniques

2025· article· en· W4412837419 on OpenAlexaff
Karolina Gaebe, Benjamin van der Woerd

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessSensitivity (control systems)Medical physicsArtificial intelligenceMedicineEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated capabilities in natural language processing and critical reasoning. Studies investigating their potential use as healthcare diagnostic tools have largely relied on proprietary models like ChatGPT and have not explored the application of advanced prompt engineering techniques. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of three open-source LLMs and the role of prompt engineering using clinical scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed the performance of three open-source LLMs-llama-3.1-70b-versatile, llama-3.1-8b-instant, and mixtral-8x7b-32768-using advanced prompt engineering when answering Medscape Clinical Challenge questions. Responses were recorded and evaluated for correctness, accuracy, precision, specificity, and sensitivity. A sensitivity analysis was conducted presenting the three LLMs with basic prompting challenge questions and excluding cases with visual assets. Results were compared with previously published performance data on GPT-3.5. RESULTS: Llama-3.1-70b-versatile, llama-3.1-8b-instant, and mixtral-8x7b-32768 achieved correct responses in 79%, 65%, and 62% of cases, respectively, outperforming GPT-3.5 (74%). Diagnostic accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity responses all outperformed those previously reported for GPT-3.5. Results generated using advanced prompting strategies were superior to those based on basic prompting. Sensitivity analysis revealed similar trends when cases with visual assets were excluded. DISCUSSION: Using advanced prompting techniques, LLMs can generate clinically accurate responses. The study highlights the limitations of proprietary models like ChatGPT, particularly in terms of accessibility and reproducibility due to version deprecation. Future research should employ prompt engineering techniques and prioritize the use of open-source models to ensure research replicability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.281
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→