Clinical decision support using large language models in otolaryngology: a systematic review.

Objective: This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery clinical decision-making.

Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies investigating clinical decision support accuracy of LLMs in otolaryngology.

Review Methods: Three investigators searched the literature for peer-reviewed studies investigating the application of LLMs as clinical decision support for real clinical cases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following outcomes were considered: diagnostic accuracy, additional examination and treatment recommendations. Study quality was assessed using the modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).

Results: Of the 285 eligible publications, 17 met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 734 patients across various otolaryngology subspecialties. ChatGPT-4 was the most evaluated LLM (n = 14/17), followed by Claude-3/3.5 (n = 2/17), and Gemini (n = 2/17). Primary diagnostic accuracy ranged from 45.7 to 80.2% across different LLMs, with Claude often outperforming ChatGPT. LLMs demonstrated lower accuracy in recommending appropriate additional examinations (10-29%) and treatments (16.7-60%), with substantial subspecialty variability. Treatment recommendation accuracy was highest in head and neck oncology (55-60%) and lowest in rhinology (16.7%). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies for the inclusion criteria, information entered in the application programming interface, and the methods of accuracy assessment.

Conclusions: LLMs demonstrate promising moderate diagnostic accuracy in otolaryngology clinical decision support, with higher performance in providing diagnoses than in suggesting appropriate additional examinations and treatments. Emerging findings support that Claude often outperforms ChatGPT. Methodological standardization is needed for future research.

Level Of Evidence: NA.