Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician
Authors: Peter G. Brodeur, Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Ethan Goh, Evelyn Bin Ling, Priyank Jain, Stephanie Cabral, Raja-Elie Abdulnour, Adrian Haimovich, Jason A. Freed, Andrew Olson, Daniel J. Morgan, Jason Hom, Robert Gallo, Eric Horvitz, Jonathan Chen, Arjun K. Manrai, Adam Rodman
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Large language models (LLMs) in medical tasks are typically evaluated using multiple choice question benchmarks, which may not reflect real-world clinical scenarios.
- Clinical reasoning is considered a more practical benchmark for assessing LLM performance as it involves critical thinking and synthesizing clinical data.
- Previous LLMs have shown promise in surpassing clinicians in routine and complex diagnostic scenarios.
- The study focuses on evaluating OpenAI's o1-preview model, specifically designed to enhance runtime by engaging in a chain of thought processes before generating a response.
- Five experiments were conducted to assess the performance of o1-preview: generating a differential diagnosis, displaying diagnostic reasoning, triaging differential diagnoses, engaging in probabilistic reasoning, and demonstrating management reasoning.
- Significant improvements were observed in generating a differential diagnosis and enhancing the quality of diagnostic and management reasoning with o1-preview.
- No notable improvements were seen in probabilistic reasoning or triaging differential diagnoses with o1-preview.
- There is a need for new robust benchmarks and scalable evaluations to effectively assess LLM capabilities compared to human physicians.
Abstract: Performance of large language models (LLMs) on medical tasks has traditionally been evaluated using multiple choice question benchmarks. However, such benchmarks are highly constrained, saturated with repeated impressive performance by LLMs, and have an unclear relationship to performance in real clinical scenarios. Clinical reasoning, the process by which physicians employ critical thinking to gather and synthesize clinical data to diagnose and manage medical problems, remains an attractive benchmark for model performance. Prior LLMs have shown promise in outperforming clinicians in routine and complex diagnostic scenarios. We sought to evaluate OpenAI's o1-preview model, a model developed to increase run-time via chain of thought processes prior to generating a response. We characterize the performance of o1-preview with five experiments including differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning, adjudicated by physician experts with validated psychometrics. Our primary outcome was comparison of the o1-preview output to identical prior experiments that have historical human controls and benchmarks of previous LLMs. Significant improvements were observed with differential diagnosis generation and quality of diagnostic and management reasoning. No improvements were observed with probabilistic reasoning or triage differential diagnosis. This study highlights o1-preview's ability to perform strongly on tasks that require complex critical thinking such as diagnosis and management while its performance on probabilistic reasoning tasks was similar to past models. New robust benchmarks and scalable evaluation of LLM capabilities compared to human physicians are needed along with trials evaluating AI in real clinical settings.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm compares the title and abstract of this paper with all the papers of the same arXiv category that we have summarized, and finds the closest ones. You can rerun it from time to time: the results improve as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.