Evaluation of four large language models on complex, infectious disease case scenarios

Abstract

Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medicine, but evaluation is often on multiple choice questions and management of common conditions. Infectious diseases (ID) can present complex scenarios that require considerations beyond guideline-based responses. We assessed LLM performance in these situations including with ID-specific criteria to consider infection control or antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Methods: We evaluated four LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, GPT-o1, and a local instance of Llama 3.1 8B) in October 2024, on five complex ID vignettes. The LLM responses were each evaluated for 18 items by two board-certified ID clinicians and pairwise comparisons were performed between LLMs. Results: There was no significant difference between performance of GPT-o1, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet on general medical criteria, and were comparable with respect to how often they provided an unsafe response (GPT-o1 30%, GPT-4o 40%, Claude 37%) and contained a critical omission (GPT-o1 27%, GPT-4o 43%, Claude 47%). Llama 3.1 8B had significantly decreased performance for most criteria. On ID-specific criteria, GPT-o1 outperformed other models and all models significantly outperformed Llama for interpreting microbiology results, AMS principles, appropriate antimicrobial spectrum and infection control considerations. Performance was poor in secondary prevention and management of risk factors. Conclusions: On complex ID scenarios, LLM responses were variable. The open-source, smaller Llama 3.1 8B model performed poorly and large, non-reasoning models varied, but more than 30% of responses containing a risk of harm or critical omission. These findings suggest caution is required when deploying these models in ID domains without specialist oversight.