Objective To determine the capabilities of ChatGPT for rapidly generating, rewriting, and evaluating (via diagnostic and triage accuracy) sets of clinical vignettes. Design We explored the capabilities of ChatGPT for generating and rewriting vignettes. First, we gave it natural language prompts to generate 10 new sets of 10 vignettes, each set for a different common childhood illness. Next, we had it generate 10 sets of 10 vignettes given a set of symptoms from which to draw. We then had it rewrite 15 existing pediatric vignettes at different levels of health literacy. Fourth, we asked it to generate 10 vignettes written as a parent, and rewrite these vignettes as a physician, then at a grade 8 reading level, before rewriting them from the original parent's perspective. Finally, we evaluated ChatGPT for diagnosis and triage for 45 clinical vignettes previously used for evaluating symptom checkers. Setting and participants ChatGPT, a publicly available, free chatbot. Main outcome measures Our main outcomes for de novo vignette generation were whether ChatGPT followed vignette creation instructions consistently, correctly, and listed reasonable symptoms for the disease being described. For generating vignettes from pre-existing symptom sets, we examined whether the symptom sets were used without introducing extra symptoms. Our main outcome for rewriting existing standardized vignettes to match patient demographics, and rewriting vignettes between styles, was whether symptoms were dropped or added outside the original vignette. Finally, our main outcomes examining diagnostic and triage accuracy on 45 standardized patient vignettes were whether the correct diagnosis was listed first, and if the correct triage recommendation was made. Results ChatGPT was able to quickly produce varied contexts and symptom profiles when writing vignettes based on an illness name, but overused some core disease symptoms. It was able to use given symptom lists as the basis for vignettes consistently, adding one additional (though appropriate) symptom from outside the list for one disease. Pediatric vignettes rewritten at different levels of health literacy showed more complex symptoms being dropped when writing at low health literacy in 87.5% of cases. While writing at high health literacy, it added a diagnosis to 80% of vignettes (91.7% correctly diagnosed). Symptoms were retained in 90% of cases when rewriting vignettes between viewpoints. When presented with 45 vignettes, ChatGPT identified illnesses with 75.6% (95% CI, 62.6% to 88.5%) first-pass diagnostic accuracy and 57.8% (95% CI, 42.9% to 72.7%) triage accuracy. Its use does require monitoring and has caveats, which we discuss. Conclusions ChatGPT was capable, with caveats and appropriate review, of generating, rewriting, and evaluating clinical vignettes.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

JB is supported by a WCHRI Postdoctoral Fellowship. This WCHRI postdoctoral fellowship award has been funded through the generous support of the Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation through the Women and Children's Health Research Institute. JB is also supported by a Cloud Grant from Oracle for Research. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

I 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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors