HackerPapers

arXiv:2412.10849cs.AI

Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician

Peter G. Brodeur, Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Ethan Goh, Evelyn Bin Ling, Priyank Jain, Stephanie Cabral, Raja-Elie Abdulnour, Adrian D. Haimovich, Jason A. Freed, Andrew Olson, Daniel J. Morgan, Jason Hom, Robert Gallo, Liam G. McCoy, Haadi Mombini, Christopher Lucas, Misha Fotoohi, Matthew Gwiazdon, Daniele Restifo, Daniel Restrepo, Eric Horvitz, Jonathan Chen, Arjun K. Manrai, Adam Rodman

Abstract

A seminal paper published by Ledley and Lusted in 1959 introduced complex clinical diagnostic reasoning cases as the gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems, a standard that has held ever since. Here, we report the results of a physician evaluation of a large language model (LLM) on challenging clinical cases against a baseline of hundreds of physicians. We conduct five experiments to measure clinical reasoning across differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning, all adjudicated by physician experts with validated psychometrics. We then report a real-world study comparing human expert and AI second opinions in randomly-selected patients in the emergency room of a major tertiary academic medical center in Boston, MA. We compared LLMs and board-certified physicians at three predefined diagnostic touchpoints: triage in the emergency room, initial evaluation by a physician, and admission to the hospital or intensive care unit. In all experiments--both vignettes and emergency room second opinions--the LLM displayed superhuman diagnostic and reasoning abilities, as well as continued improvement from prior generations of AI clinical decision support. Our study suggests that LLMs have achieved superhuman performance on general medical diagnostic and management reasoning, fulfilling the vision put forth by Ledley and Lusted, and motivating the urgent need for prospective trials.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.CLComputation and Language

On Hacker News

Linked by 4 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Jan 2025 to May 2026. Found in 4 HN submissions from Dec 2024 to May 2025. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10849 "Our study suggests that LLMs have achieved superhuman performance on general medical diagnostic and management reasoning"

      pkrollView on HNParent context

    • If we talk about a median well-educated human, o1 likely passes the bar. Quite a few tests of reasoning suggests that’s the case. An example: “Preprint out today that tests o1-preview's medical reasoning experiments against a baseline of 100s of clinicians. In this case the…

      nopinsightView on HNParent context

    • > so don’t ask a language model to diagnose your medical condition (o1-preview) LLMs show promise in clinical reasoning but fall short in probabilistic tasks, underscoring why AI shouldn't replace doctors for diagnosis just yet. "Superhuman performance of a large language model…

      pellaView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.