IMPORTANCE: Large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots direct the power of large training datasets towards successive, related tasks, as opposed to single-ask tasks, for which AI already achieves impressive performance. The capacity of LLMs to assist in the full scope of iterative clinical reasoning via successive prompting, in effect acting as virtual physicians, has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ChatGPT′s capacity for ongoing clinical decision support via its performance on standardized clinical vignettes. DESIGN: We inputted all 36 published clinical vignettes from the Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) Clinical Manual into ChatGPT and compared accuracy on differential diagnoses, diagnostic testing, final diagnosis, and management based on patient age, gender, and case acuity. SETTING: ChatGPT, a publicly available LLM PARTICIPANTS: Clinical vignettes featured hypothetical patients with a variety of age and gender identities, and a range of Emergency Severity Indices (ESIs) based on initial clinical presentation. EXPOSURES: MSD Clinical Manual vignettes MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We measured the proportion of correct responses to the questions posed within the clinical vignettes tested. RESULTS: ChatGPT achieved 71.7% (95% CI, 69.3% to 74.1%) accuracy overall across all 36 clinical vignettes. The LLM demonstrated the highest performance in making a final diagnosis with an accuracy of 76.9% (95% CI, 67.8% to 86.1%), and the lowest performance in generating an initial differential diagnosis with an accuracy of 60.3% (95% CI, 54.2% to 66.6%). Compared to answering questions about general medical knowledge, ChatGPT demonstrated inferior performance on differential diagnosis (β=-15.8%, p<0.001) and clinical management (β=-7.4%, p=0.02) type questions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ChatGPT achieves impressive accuracy in clinical decision making, with particular strengths emerging as it has more clinical information at its disposal.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The project described was supported in part by award Number T32GM144273 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.

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 work are contained in the manuscript