Background: Digital health technologies hold promise to enhance patient-related outcomes, to support health care staff by reducing their workload, and to improve the coordination of care. As key users of digital health technologies, health care workers are crucial to enable a meaningful digital transformation of health care. Digital health literacy and digital skills should become prerequisite competencies for health professionals to facilitate the implementation and leverage the potential of digital technologies to improve health. Objective: We aimed to assess European medical students’ perceived knowledge and opinions toward digital health, the status of digital health implementation in medical education, and the students’ most pressing needs. Methods: The explanatory design of our mixed methods study was based on an online, anonymous, self-administered survey targeted toward European medical students. A linear regression analysis was used to identify the influence of the year of medical studies on the responses. Additional analysis was performed by grouping the responses by the self-evaluated frequency of eHealth technology use. Written responses to four qualitative questions in the survey were analyzed using an inductive approach. Results: The survey received a total of 451 responses from 39 European countries, and there were respondents for every year of medical studies. The majority of respondents saw advantages in the use of digital health. While 40.6% (183/451) felt prepared to work in a digitized health care system, more than half (240/451, 53.2%) evaluated their eHealth skills as poor or very poor. Medical students considered lack of education to be the reason for this, with 84.9% (383/451) agreeing or strongly agreeing that more digital health education should be implemented in the medical curriculum. Students demanded introductory and specific eHealth courses covering data management, ethical aspects, legal frameworks, research and entrepreneurial opportunities, role in public health and health systems, communication skills, and practical training. The emphasis lay on tailoring learning to future job requirements and interprofessional education. Conclusions: This study shows a lack of digital health-related formats in medical education and a perceived lack of digital health literacy among European medical students. Our findings indicate a gap between the willingness of medical students to take an active role by becoming key players in the digital transformation of health care and the education that they receive through their faculties.

Background: As advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) continue, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for generating medical information. Their rapid adaptation and potential benefits in health care require rigorous assessment in terms of the quality, accuracy, and safety of the generated information across diverse medical specialties. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of 4 prominent LLMs, namely, Claude-instant-v1.0, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Command-xlarge-nightly, and Bloomz, in generating medical content spanning the clinical specialties of ophthalmology, orthopedics, and dermatology. Methods: Three domain-specific physicians evaluated the AI-generated therapeutic recommendations for a diverse set of 60 diseases. The evaluation criteria involved the mDISCERN score, correctness, and potential harmfulness of the recommendations. ANOVA and pairwise t tests were used to explore discrepancies in content quality and safety across models and specialties. Additionally, using the capabilities of OpenAI’s most advanced model, GPT-4, an automated evaluation of each model’s responses to the diseases was performed using the same criteria and compared to the physicians’ assessments through Pearson correlation analysis. Results: Claude-instant-v1.0 emerged with the highest mean mDISCERN score (3.35, 95% CI 3.23-3.46). In contrast, Bloomz lagged with the lowest score (1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.10). Our analysis revealed significant differences among the models in terms of quality (P<.001). Evaluating their reliability, the models displayed strong contrasts in their falseness ratings, with variations both across models (P<.001) and specialties (P<.001). Distinct error patterns emerged, such as confusing diagnoses; providing vague, ambiguous advice; or omitting critical treatments, such as antibiotics for infectious diseases. Regarding potential harm, GPT-3.5-Turbo was found to be the safest, with the lowest harmfulness rating. All models lagged in detailing the risks associated with treatment procedures, explaining the effects of therapies on quality of life, and offering additional sources of information. Pearson correlation analysis underscored a substantial alignment between physician assessments and GPT-4’s evaluations across all established criteria (P<.01). Conclusions: This study, while comprehensive, was limited by the involvement of a select number of specialties and physician evaluators. The straightforward prompting strategy (“How to treat…”) and the assessment benchmarks, initially conceptualized for human-authored content, might have potential gaps in capturing the nuances of AI-driven information. The LLMs evaluated showed a notable capability in generating valuable medical content; however, evident lapses in content quality and potential harm signal the need for further refinements. Given the dynamic landscape of LLMs, this study’s findings emphasize the need for regular and methodical assessments, oversight, and fine-tuning of these AI tools to ensure they produce consistently trustworthy and clinically safe medical advice. Notably, the introduction of an auto-evaluation mechanism using GPT-4, as detailed in this study, provides a scalable, transferable method for domain-agnostic evaluations, extending beyond therapy recommendation assessments.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in diverse domains, including medicine. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of studies examining their performance in medical examinations, especially those conducted in languages other than English, and in direct comparison with medical students. Analyzing the performance of LLMs in state medical examinations can provide insights into their capabilities and limitations and evaluate their potential role in medical education and examination preparation. Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the performance of 3 LLMs, GPT-4, Bing, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, in the German Medical State Examinations of 2022 and to evaluate their performance relative to that of medical students. Methods: The LLMs were assessed on a total of 630 questions from the spring and fall German Medical State Examinations of 2022. The performance was evaluated with and without media-related questions. Statistical analyses included 1-way ANOVA and independent samples t tests for pairwise comparisons. The relative strength of the LLMs in comparison with that of the students was also evaluated. Results: GPT-4 achieved the highest overall performance, correctly answering 88.1% of questions, closely followed by Bing (86.0%) and GPT-3.5-Turbo (65.7%). The students had an average correct answer rate of 74.6%. Both GPT-4 and Bing significantly outperformed the students in both examinations. When media questions were excluded, Bing achieved the highest performance of 90.7%, closely followed by GPT-4 (90.4%), while GPT-3.5-Turbo lagged (68.2%). There was a significant decline in the performance of GPT-4 and Bing in the fall 2022 examination, which was attributed to a higher proportion of media-related questions and a potential increase in question difficulty. Conclusions: LLMs, particularly GPT-4 and Bing, demonstrate potential as valuable tools in medical education and for pretesting examination questions. Their high performance, even relative to that of medical students, indicates promising avenues for further development and integration into the educational and clinical landscape.

This study evaluates multimodal AI models’ accuracy and responsiveness in answering NEJM Image Challenge questions, juxtaposed with human collective intelligence, underscoring AI’s potential and current limitations in clinical diagnostics. Anthropic’s Claude 3 family demonstrated the highest accuracy among the evaluated AI models, surpassing the average human accuracy, while collective human decision-making outperformed all AI models. GPT-4 Vision Preview exhibited selectivity, responding more to easier questions with smaller images and longer questions.

Histopathology is the reference standard for diagnosing the presence and nature of many diseases, including cancer. However, analyzing tissue samples under a microscope and summarizing the findings in a comprehensive pathology report is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and non-standardized. To address this problem, we present HistoGPT, a vision language model that generates pathology reports from a patient’s multiple full-resolution histology images. It is trained on 15,129 whole slide images from 6705 dermatology patients with corresponding pathology reports. The generated reports match the quality of human-written reports for common and homogeneous malignancies, as confirmed by natural language processing metrics and domain expert analysis. We evaluate HistoGPT in an international, multi-center clinical study and show that it can accurately predict tumor subtypes, tumor thickness, and tumor margins in a zero-shot fashion. Our model demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence to assist pathologists in evaluating, reporting, and understanding routine dermatopathology cases.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) represent rising trends in modern medicine. However, comprehensive data on the performance of AI practices in clinical dermatologic images are non‐existent. Furthermore, the role of professional data selection for training remains unknown.Objectives: The aims of this study were to develop AI applications for outlier detection of dermatological pathologies, to evaluate CNN architectures' performance on dermatological images and to investigate the role of professional pre‐processing of the training data, serving as one of the first anchor points regarding data selection criteria in dermatological AI‐based binary classification tasks of non‐melanoma pathologies.Methods: Six state‐of‐the‐art CNN architectures were evaluated for their accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for five dermatological diseases and using five data subsets, including data selected by two dermatologists, one with 5 and the other with 11 years of clinical experience.Results: Overall, 150 CNNs were evaluated on up to 4051 clinical images. The best accuracy was reached for onychomycosis (accuracy = 1.000), followed by bullous pemphigoid (accuracy = 0.951) and lupus erythematosus (accuracy = 0.912). The CNNs InceptionV3, Xception and ResNet50 achieved the best accuracy in 9, 8 and 6 out of 25 data sets, respectively (36.0%, 32.0% and 24.0%). On average, the data set provided by the senior physician and the data set provided in accordance with both dermatologists performed the best (accuracy = 0.910).Conclusions: This AI approach for the detection of outliers in dermatological diagnoses represents one of the first studies to evaluate the performance of different CNNs for binary decisions in clinical non‐dermatoscopic images of a variety of dermatological diseases other than melanoma. The selection of images by an experienced dermatologist during pre‐processing had substantial benefits for the performance of the CNNs. These comparative results might guide future AI approaches to dermatology diagnostics, and the evaluated CNNs might be applicable for the future training of dermatology residents.