The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2306.01499 · v1 · pith:4VNJBTC7 · submitted 2023-06-02 · cs.CL · cs.LG

Can LLMs like GPT-4 outperform traditional AI tools in dementia diagnosis? Maybe, but not today

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:4VNJBTC7record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords gpt-4toolstraditionaldementiadiagnosisllmsclinicalexperimental
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Recent investigations show that large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, not only have remarkable capabilities in common Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks but also exhibit human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks. However, whether GPT-4 can be directly used in practical applications and replace traditional artificial intelligence (AI) tools in specialized domains requires further experimental validation. In this paper, we explore the potential of LLMs such as GPT-4 to outperform traditional AI tools in dementia diagnosis. Comprehensive comparisons between GPT-4 and traditional AI tools are conducted to examine their diagnostic accuracy in a clinical setting. Experimental results on two real clinical datasets show that, although LLMs like GPT-4 demonstrate potential for future advancements in dementia diagnosis, they currently do not surpass the performance of traditional AI tools. The interpretability and faithfulness of GPT-4 are also evaluated by comparison with real doctors. We discuss the limitations of GPT-4 in its current state and propose future research directions to enhance GPT-4 in dementia diagnosis.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AI-based Cognitive-linguistic Features for Dementia Assessment in Picture Description

    eess.AS 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LLMs prompted on seven constructs for picture descriptions distinguish cognitive impairment with 85% accuracy and produce expert-agreed explanations.