JMIR Medical Informatics (Oct 2024)

Comparative Study to Evaluate the Accuracy of Differential Diagnosis Lists Generated by Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard for a Case Report Series Analysis: Cross-Sectional Study

  • Takanobu Hirosawa,
  • Yukinori Harada,
  • Kazuki Tokumasu,
  • Takahiro Ito,
  • Tomoharu Suzuki,
  • Taro Shimizu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/63010
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12
p. e63010

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GAI) systems by Google have recently been updated from Bard to Gemini and Gemini Advanced as of December 2023. Gemini is a basic, free-to-use model after a user’s login, while Gemini Advanced operates on a more advanced model requiring a fee-based subscription. These systems have the potential to enhance medical diagnostics. However, the impact of these updates on comprehensive diagnostic accuracy remains unknown. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the accuracy of the differential diagnosis lists generated by Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard across comprehensive medical fields using case report series. MethodsWe identified a case report series with relevant final diagnoses published in the American Journal Case Reports from January 2022 to March 2023. After excluding nondiagnostic cases and patients aged 10 years and younger, we included the remaining case reports. After refining the case parts as case descriptions, we input the same case descriptions into Gemini Advanced, Gemini, and Bard to generate the top 10 differential diagnosis lists. In total, 2 expert physicians independently evaluated whether the final diagnosis was included in the lists and its ranking. Any discrepancies were resolved by another expert physician. Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust the P values for the number of comparisons among 3 GAI systems, setting the corrected significance level at P value <.02. ResultsIn total, 392 case reports were included. The inclusion rates of the final diagnosis within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists were 73% (286/392) for Gemini Advanced, 76.5% (300/392) for Gemini, and 68.6% (269/392) for Bard. The top diagnoses matched the final diagnoses in 31.6% (124/392) for Gemini Advanced, 42.6% (167/392) for Gemini, and 31.4% (123/392) for Bard. Gemini demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than Bard both within the top 10 differential diagnosis lists (P=.02) and as the top diagnosis (P=.001). In addition, Gemini Advanced achieved significantly lower accuracy than Gemini in identifying the most probable diagnosis (P=.002). ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that Gemini outperformed Bard in diagnostic accuracy following the model update. However, Gemini Advanced requires further refinement to optimize its performance for future artificial intelligence–enhanced diagnostics. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and considered primarily for research purposes, as these GAI systems have not been adjusted for medical diagnostics nor approved for clinical use.