Artificial Intelligence tools like ChatGPT are increasingly used by patients to support their care-seeking decisions, although the accuracy of newer models remains unclear. We evaluated 16 ChatGPT models using 45 validated vignettes, each prompted ten times (7,200 total assessments). Each model classified the vignettes as requiring emergency care, non-emergency care, or self-care. We evaluated accuracy against each case’s gold standard solution, examined the variability across trials, and tested algorithms to aggregate multiple recommendations to improve accuracy. o1-mini achieved the highest accuracy (78%), but we could not observe an overall improvement with newer models – although reasoning models (e.g., o4-mini) improved their accuracy in identifying self-care cases. Selecting the lowest urgency level across multiple trials improved accuracy by 4 percentage points. Although newer models slightly outperform laypeople, their accuracy remains insufficient for standalone use. However, making use of output variability with aggregation algorithms can improve the performance of these models.
Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.
Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availabilityThe data will be published in an open access repositorium upon acceptance.
Comments (0)