This is a rather new article about an old model...
OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
21–30 of 500 posts
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#22The Guardian needs to raise their bar on what to report and how to give readers full context on the ongoing NFT AI trust me bro crypto scam and that context would be that it is a mathematical model of human language and not medical expert or replacement for one.
So we can eventually classify AI models as Software experts, but not as Medical experts, why so?
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#23would it ever diagnose incorrectly to save more lives? kinda weird an ai would decide who die so others may survive, but i guess whatever.
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#24This is a rather new article about an old model...
Study design, data collection, analysis, and peer review take time. O1 came out a little over 1.5 years ago
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#25I'd be very very hesitant to trust studies like this. It's very easy to mess up these benchmarks. See for example this recent paper where AI managed to beat radiologists on interpreting x-rays... when the AI didn't even have access to the x-rays: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687 (on a pre existing "large scale visual question answering benchmark for generalist chest x-ray understanding" that wasn't intentionally mess…
I agree with you on this specific study, however, I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run. After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors), if we already have this assumption for software engineers, we should have it for this field as well, and let's be realistic, each time I've seen a doc the last few months (and ER twice), each time they were using ChatGPT btw (not kidding, it chocked me).
So I’m genuinely curious:
What is the specific capability (or combination of capabilities) that people believe will remain permanently (or at least for decades) where a top medical AI cannot match or exceed the performance of a good human doctor? Let's put liability and ethics aside, let's be purely objective about it.
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#26I’ve had much better luck with diagnosis of my own family’s issues than with doctors. Usually now, I’m feeding them more information to begin with, so that their 30 minute office visits are not wasted, requiring another expensive follow up appointment. While I’m sure there can be ways in which such studies are wrong, it’s very obvious that AI can accelerate work in many of these areas where we seek out professional h…
It can speed up some aspects of work, but please don't trust some llm with variable quality of output more than professional. If you don't like current doctor try another, most are in the business of helping other people.
If you have string of issues with 10 last doctors though, then issue is, most probably, you...
My wife is a GP, and easily 1/3 of her patients have also some minor-but-visible mental issue. 1-2 out of 10 scale. Makes them still functional in society but... often very hard to be around with.
That doesn't mean I don't trust your words, there are tons of people with either rare issues or even fairly common ones but manifesting in non-standard way (or mixed with some other issue). These folks suffer a lot to find a doctor who doesn't bunch them up in some general state with generic treatment. There are those, but not that often.
It helps both sides tremendously if patient is not above or arrogant know-it-all waving with chatgpt into doctor's face and basically just coming for prescription after self-diagnosis. Then, help is sometimes proportional to situation and lawful obligations.
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#27[flagged]
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#28I'll repeat my idea on how this MUST be done:
1. AI gets data about the patient and makes a diagnosis. This is NOT shown to doctor yet.
2. Doctor does their stuff, writes down their diagnosis. This diagnosis is locked down and versioned.
3. Doctor sees AI's diagnosis
4. Doctor can adjust their diagnosis, BUT the original stays in the system.
This way the AI stays as the assistant and won't affect the doctor's decision, but they can change their mind after getting the extra data.
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#29The paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz4433 (April 30, 2026)
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#30would it ever diagnose incorrectly to save more lives? kinda weird an ai would decide who die so others may survive, but i guess whatever.
Not only should AI misdiagnose to save lives, but a human should too. You walk in with symptoms that most likely is a harmless virus that clears up on its own or 5% of the time is a deadly bacteria. The correct course of action is to try to test if it is the 5% case (most often the wrong diagnosis), not send people home because they are most likely fine. Many cases have a similar low but not 0 risky diagnosis.