通用大语言模型临床推理输出在医学教育中的适用性评估与比较OA
Applicability Assessment and Comparison of Clinical Reasoning Outputs from General-Purpose Large Language Models in Medical Education
目的 比较6 种通用大语言模型(large language models,LLMs)在标准化临床病例中的诊断准确性及鉴别诊断全面性,评估其在临床推理教学中的适用性.方法 纳入2023 年 3 月—2025 年 2 月发表于 BMJ"Endgames"专栏的74 例标准化临床病例,以纯文本病例信息作为提示词,通过官方应用程序编程接口(application programming interface,API)调用6 种通用 LLMs(ChatGPT-4、ChatGPT-4o、DeepSeek-V3、DeepSeek-R1、Gemini-2.0、Kimi-k1.5),对模型的诊断准确率和鉴别诊断全面性进行评估与比较.诊断准确率的组间比较采用 Cochran's Q 检验,事后两两比较采用 McNemar 检验;鉴别诊断全面性的组间比较采用 Friedman 检验,事后两两比较采用配对 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验,P 值均经 Bonferroni法校正;等级分布差异采用 Pearson卡方检验.结果 6 种模型的诊断准确率介于 62.2%~78.4%之间,模型间总体差异具有统计学意义(P=0.022),但任意两模型间差异均无统计学意义(P 均>0.05).分层分析显示,无图病例中模型的准确率(63.3%~81.6%)高于含图病例(52.0%~72.0%),各模型间差异均无统计学意义(P 均>0.05).6 种模型中,DeepSeek-R1 的鉴别诊断平均覆盖率最高(61.2%),ChatGPT-4o 最低(50.3%),模型间总体差异具有统计学意义(χ2=16.6,P=0.005).ChatGPT-4o 的鉴别诊断全面性显著低于 Gemini-2.0(校正后 r=0.436,P=0.009).等级分布方面,约 70%~80%的病例仅达"有限"或"中等"全面性,模型间差异无统计学意义(χ2=17.90,P=0.268).结论 当前 通用 LLMs在标准化临床病例中的诊断准确率可达中等水平,但鉴别诊断全面性整体不足.由于诊断准确率与鉴别诊断全面性是临床推理教学的基础要素,提示其输出质量尚不支持直接用于教学场景,需经教师审核后谨慎使用.
Objective To compare the diagnostic accuracy and differential diagnosis comprehensiveness of six general-purpose large language models(LLMs)on standardized clinical cases,and to assess their applicability for clinical reasoning education.Methods A total of 74 standardized clinical cases published in the BMJ"Endgames"column between March 2023 and February 2025 were included.Six general-purpose LLMs(ChatGPT-4,ChatGPT-4o,DeepSeek-V3,DeepSeek-R1,Gemini-2.0,and Kimi-k1.5)were prompted with identical text-only case information via their application programming interfaces(APIs).Diagnostic accuracy and differential diagnosis comprehensiveness were evaluated and compared across models.For statistical analysis,Cochran's Q test was used for overall comparisons of diagnostic accuracy,with post-hoc pairwise comparisons per-formed using McNemar tests;the Friedman test was used for overall comparisons of differential diagnosis compre-hensiveness,with post-hoc pairwise comparisons performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests;all P-values were adjusted using the Bonferroni method.Grade distribution differences were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square test.Results Diagnostic accuracy ranged from 62.2%to 78.4%across the six models,with a statistically signif-icant overall difference among models(P=0.022);however,no pairwise comparison remained significant after Bonferroni correction(all P>0.05).Stratified analysis showed that accuracy was higher for cases without images(63.3%-81.6%)than for those with images(52.0%-72.0%),with no significant differences among models in either subgroup(all P>0.05).Regarding differential diagnosis comprehensiveness,DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest mean coverage rate(61.2%),while ChatGPT-4o scored the lowest(50.3%),with a statistically signifi-cant overall difference among models(χ2=16.6,P=0.005).Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that ChatG-PT-4o was significantly inferior to Gemini-2.0(adjusted r=0.436,P=0.009).Regarding grade distribution,approximately 70%-80%of cases achieved only"moderate"or"limited"comprehensiveness,with no significant difference among models(χ2=17.90,P=0.268).Conclusions Current general-purpose LLMs can achieve a moderate level of diagnostic accuracy on standardized clinical cases,but demonstrate insufficient differential diag-nosis comprehensiveness.Given that diagnostic accuracy and differential diagnosis comprehensiveness are funda-mental elements of clinical reasoning education,these findings suggest that the quality of LLMs-generated outputs is not yet sufficient for direct application in teaching scenarios and should be used with caution under teacher su-pervision.
徐赫;翟林萱;朱亚伦;崔恒夫;朱祖懿;焦洋
首都医科大学宣武医院神经疾病高创中心,北京 100053||中国医学科学院北京协和医学院,北京协和医院全科医学科 (普通内科),北京 100730||中国医学科学院北京协和医学院临床医学专业培养模式改革试点班,北京 100730中国医学科学院北京协和医学院临床医学专业培养模式改革试点班,北京 100730百川智能科技有限公司,北京 100084百川智能科技有限公司,北京 100084百川智能科技有限公司,北京 100084中国医学科学院北京协和医学院,北京协和医院全科医学科 (普通内科),北京 100730
医药卫生
人工智能通用型大语言模型医学教育临床推理
artificial intelligencelarge language modelsmedical educationclinical reasoning
《协和医学杂志》 2026 (5)
1250-1255,6
大学生创新创业项目(2025dcxm179)北京协和医院教育创新与改革项目(CMB-JYCXGG04) the National Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program(2025dcxm179)Peking Union Medical College Hospital Education Innovation and Reform Project(CMB-JYCXGG04)
评论