Comparative Accuracy, Stability, and Correctability of Large Language Models in Otolaryngology and Pharmacovigilance

To compare the clinical and pharmacovigilance performance, stability, and correctability of 3 large language models (LLMs) in otolaryngology outpatient care.

Prospective case series.

Multicenter University Hospitals.

Consecutive adults (August-October 2024) with established primary diagnoses were entered into ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-1.5-Pro, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet using only history and physical examination findings (no complementary tests) via standardized prompts. Two blinded otolaryngologists rated clinical accuracy with the Artificial Intelligence Performance Instrument (AIPI); 2 blinded pharmacists rated pharmacological information on a 5-point Likert scale. Errors were fed back to models and all cases were re-queried one month later. Interrater reliability used ICC; stability used Cronbach's α. Group differences used Kruskal-Wallis.

Fifty-one patients with 60 diagnoses across otolaryngology subspecialties were consecutively recruited (38 females (74.5%); mean age of 42.4 ± 17.4 years). All LLMs recommended significantly more additional examinations than practitioners (P = .001), with a significant increase of the number of recommended additional examinations after regenerated inputs for ChatGPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet, respectively. Claude-3.5-Sonnet and ChatGPT-4o outperformed Gemini-1.5-Pro for AIPI-clinical management (P = .001) and pharmacovigilance findings (P = .001). The physicians (ICC = 0.853) and the pharmacists (ICC = 0.991) demonstrated an almost perfect interrater reliability. All LLMs demonstrated an almost perfect clinical stability (α = 0.831-0.856), though human feedback did not significantly reduce misdiagnosis rates in subsequent interactions.

In outpatient ENT cases using clinical features alone, ChatGPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet deliver higher clinical and pharmacovigilance performance than Gemini-1.5-Pro, with almost perfect interrater reliability and stable outputs. Re-querying after feedback did not improve accuracy, questioning short-term correctability.