Comparing OpenEvidence and GPT-4 for Diagnostic Reasoning and Management Decisions: A Randomized Trial
Abstract
Clinical decision support tools powered by artificial intelligence (AI) are being rapidly integrated into medical practice. Two leading systems currently available to clinicians are OpenEvidence, which uses retrieval-augmented generation to access medical literature, and GPT-4, a large language model. While both tools show promise, their relative effectiveness in supporting clinical decision-making has not been directly compared. This study aims to evaluate how these tools influence diagnostic reasoning and management decisions among internal medicine physicians.
Conditions: Large Language Models.
Primary outcome: Clinical Reasoning Performance as determined by Rater Scores.
Enrollment: 41 participants.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 41 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Navigating Generative Artificial Intelligence Promises and Perils for Knowledge and Creative Work
- Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management
- Large language models and multimodal foundation models for precision oncology
- From Generative AI to Extended Reality: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Challenges, Opportunities, and Future of Educational Computing
- Generative Artificial Intelligence: A New Engine for Advancing Environmental Science and Engineering
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.