arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.00061

Evaluating the Feasibility and Accuracy of Large Language Models for Medical History-Taking in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Dou Liu·Ying Long·Sophia Zuoqiu·Tian Tang·Rong Yin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Effective physician-patient communications in pre-diagnostic environments, and most specifically in complex and sensitive medical areas such as infertility, are critical but consume a lot of time and, therefore, cause clinic workflows to become inefficient. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a potential solution for automating conversational medical history-taking and improving diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluates the feasibility and performance of LLMs in those tasks for infertility cases. An AI-driven conversational system was developed to simulate physician-patient interactions with ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4o-mini. A total of 70 real-world infertility cases were processed, generating 420 diagnostic histories. Model performance was assessed using F1 score, Differential Diagnosis (DDs) Accuracy, and Accuracy of Infertility Type Judgment (ITJ). ChatGPT-4o-mini outperformed ChatGPT-4o in information extraction accuracy (F1 score: 0.9258 vs. 0.9029, p = 0.045, d = 0.244) and demonstrated higher completeness in medical history-taking (97.58% vs. 77.11%), suggesting that ChatGPT-4o-mini is more effective in extracting detailed patient information, which is critical for improving diagnostic accuracy. In contrast, ChatGPT-4o performed slightly better in differential diagnosis accuracy (2.0524 vs. 2.0048, p > 0.05). ITJ accuracy was higher in ChatGPT-4o-mini (0.6476 vs. 0.5905) but with lower consistency (Cronbach's $α$ = 0.562), suggesting variability in classification reliability. Both models demonstrated strong feasibility in automating infertility history-taking, with ChatGPT-4o-mini excelling in completeness and extraction accuracy. In future studies, expert validation for accuracy and dependability in a clinical setting, AI model fine-tuning, and larger datasets with a mix of cases of infertility have to be prioritized.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dou Liu, Ying Long, Sophia Zuoqiu, Tian Tang, Rong Yin. 2025-03-31. Evaluating the Feasibility and Accuracy of Large Language Models for Medical History-Taking in Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00061

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗