4 ms·

Recently I uploaded a lab report to chatGPT and asked it to summarize it. It hallucinated serious cancer, along with all the associated details you’d normally

Recently I uploaded a lab report to chatGPT and asked it to summarize it. It hallucinated serious cancer, along with all the associated details you’d normally find on a lab report. It had an answer to every question I had pre-asked about the report. The report said the opposite: no cancer detected.

maliker 1y ago
Interesting. What LLM model? 4o, o3, 3.5? I had horrible performance with earlier models, but o3 has helped me with health stuff (hearing issues).
- unsupp0rted 1y ago
  Whichever the default free model is right now- I stopped paying for it when Gemini 2.5 came out in Google's AI lab. 4o, o4? I'm certain it wasn't 3.5 Edit: while logged in
  - pants2 1y ago
    If you're logged in, 4o, if you're not logged int, 4o-mini. Both don't score well on the benchmark!
    - askafriend 1y ago
      This gets at the UX issue with AI right now. How's a normie supposed to know and understand this nuance?
      - unsupp0rted 1y ago
        Or a non-normie. Even while logged in, I had no idea what ChatGPT model it was using, since it doesn't label it. All the label says is "great for everyday tasks". And as a non-normie, I obviously didn't take its analysis seriously, and compared it to Grok and Gemini 2.5. The latter was the best.
    - unsupp0rted 1y ago
      Added context: While logged in
  - maliker 1y ago
    Might be worth trying again with Gemini 2.5. The reasoning models like that one are much better at health questions.
    - unsupp0rted 1y ago
      Gemini 2.5 in AI Studio gave by far the best analysis
  - icelancer 1y ago
    > Whichever the default free model is right now Sigh. This is a point in favor of not allowing free access to ChatGPT at all given that people are getting mad at GPT-4o-mini which is complete garbage for anything remotely complex... and garbage for most other things, too. Just give 5 free queries of 4o/o3 or whatever and call it good.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    I can’t believe you’re getting downvoted for answering the question about the next-token-predictor model you can’t recall using. What is happening?
Gracana 1y ago
I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? I gave it a pdf of an engine manual recently and asked some questions, which it answered reasonably. It even pulled a schematic out for me, though it was the wrong one (it gave me a schematic for the CDI ignition variant that we first talked about, rather than the DSAI one we settled on later.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- astura 1y ago
  >I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? FWIW, This is what chatgpt gave me when I uploaded a lab report, it read the results back to me: Here’s an interpretation of the blood test results you provided: White Blood Cell Count (WBC) Value: 9.2 (Normal: 3.8 - 10.8 Thousand/uL) Within the normal range, indicating no immediate signs of infection or inflammation. Red Blood Cell Count (RBC) Value: 5.29 (Normal: 3.8 - 5.1 Million/uL) Elevated (High). This could indicate dehydration, stress, or other conditions like polycythemia. Hemoglobin Value: 10.9 (Normal: 11.7 - 15.5 g/dL) Low. Suggests anemia, possibly due to iron deficiency or chronic disease. Hematocrit Value: 36.0% (Normal: 35.0 - 45.0%) Within the normal range, but on the lower side, supporting the presence of mild anemia. Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV) Value: 68.1 (Normal: 80.0 - 100.0 fL) Low. Indicates microcytic anemia, often due to iron deficiency. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin (MCH) Value: 20.6 (Normal: 27.0 - 33.0 pg) Low. Suggests hypochromia (paler red blood cells), often associated with iron-deficiency anemia. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC) Value: 30.3 (Normal: 32.0 - 36.0 g/dL) Slightly low. May reflect reduced hemoglobin in red blood cells, consistent with iron-deficiency anemia. Red Cell Distribution Width (RDW) Value: 15.8% (Normal: 11.0 - 15.0%) Elevated. Indicates variability in red blood cell size, common in iron-deficiency anemia. Platelet Count Value: 397 (Normal: 140 - 400 Thousand/uL) Normal, but on the higher side of the range. Other Key Metrics Absolute Neutrophils, Lymphocytes, Monocytes, Eosinophils, Basophils: All within normal ranges, suggesting no significant abnormalities in immune cell populations. Anisocytosis (1+): Indicates variation in red blood cell size. Hypochromasia (1+): Suggests pale red blood cells, supporting iron-deficiency anemia. Summary These results suggest iron-deficiency anemia, characterized by low hemoglobin, low MCV, low MCH, and high RDW. The elevated red blood cell count may reflect compensatory mechanisms or mild dehydration. Your provider recommends a heart-healthy, low-fat diet, which is great for overall health. However, addressing the anemia might also involve increasing dietary iron or taking iron supplements. The diagnosis is wrong, btw, I don't have iron deficiency. The anemia is caused by a genetic condition called thalassemia, which has been verified by genetic tests. You can use the Mentzer Index to differentiate the two on a simple CBC - https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index Mine numbers return a "probable diagnosis." I was wondering if chatgpt would catch it, nope, it didn't. It did say that it was a possibility once I suggested it though.
code-crapper-69 1y ago
[flagged]
arcanemachiner 1y ago
No, cancer detected!
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  You're not on Reddit.
  - arcanemachiner 1y ago
    I typically respect the decorum here, but I couldn't help myself this time.
dekhn 1y ago
What was the outcome (did the subject of the lab report go on to present cancer)? (sometimes what we think is a false positive ends up being a true positive later, and cancer is a late-arriving signal).
- unsupp0rted 1y ago
  The lab report clearly described in medical jargon what the sample was, and that the sample was not cancer. There was no reference in the report that the LLM might have pulled out to think otherwise.
  - dekhn 1y ago
    I dunno, cancer is complicated. I'd have to see the details to make that judgement. It really depends on a lot of factors- what the nature of the sample was, what the lab report did, etc.

maliker 1y ago

Interesting. What LLM model? 4o, o3, 3.5? I had horrible performance with earlier models, but o3 has helped me with health stuff (hearing issues).

unsupp0rted 1y ago
Whichever the default free model is right now- I stopped paying for it when Gemini 2.5 came out in Google's AI lab. 4o, o4? I'm certain it wasn't 3.5 Edit: while logged in
- pants2 1y ago
  If you're logged in, 4o, if you're not logged int, 4o-mini. Both don't score well on the benchmark!
  - askafriend 1y ago
    This gets at the UX issue with AI right now. How's a normie supposed to know and understand this nuance?
    - unsupp0rted 1y ago
      Or a non-normie. Even while logged in, I had no idea what ChatGPT model it was using, since it doesn't label it. All the label says is "great for everyday tasks". And as a non-normie, I obviously didn't take its analysis seriously, and compared it to Grok and Gemini 2.5. The latter was the best.
  - unsupp0rted 1y ago
    Added context: While logged in
- maliker 1y ago
  Might be worth trying again with Gemini 2.5. The reasoning models like that one are much better at health questions.
  - unsupp0rted 1y ago
    Gemini 2.5 in AI Studio gave by far the best analysis
- icelancer 1y ago
  > Whichever the default free model is right now Sigh. This is a point in favor of not allowing free access to ChatGPT at all given that people are getting mad at GPT-4o-mini which is complete garbage for anything remotely complex... and garbage for most other things, too. Just give 5 free queries of 4o/o3 or whatever and call it good.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  I can’t believe you’re getting downvoted for answering the question about the next-token-predictor model you can’t recall using. What is happening?

Gracana 1y ago

I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? I gave it a pdf of an engine manual recently and asked some questions, which it answered reasonably. It even pulled a schematic out for me, though it was the wrong one (it gave me a schematic for the CDI ignition variant that we first talked about, rather than the DSAI one we settled on later.)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
astura 1y ago
>I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? FWIW, This is what chatgpt gave me when I uploaded a lab report, it read the results back to me: Here’s an interpretation of the blood test results you provided: White Blood Cell Count (WBC) Value: 9.2 (Normal: 3.8 - 10.8 Thousand/uL) Within the normal range, indicating no immediate signs of infection or inflammation. Red Blood Cell Count (RBC) Value: 5.29 (Normal: 3.8 - 5.1 Million/uL) Elevated (High). This could indicate dehydration, stress, or other conditions like polycythemia. Hemoglobin Value: 10.9 (Normal: 11.7 - 15.5 g/dL) Low. Suggests anemia, possibly due to iron deficiency or chronic disease. Hematocrit Value: 36.0% (Normal: 35.0 - 45.0%) Within the normal range, but on the lower side, supporting the presence of mild anemia. Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV) Value: 68.1 (Normal: 80.0 - 100.0 fL) Low. Indicates microcytic anemia, often due to iron deficiency. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin (MCH) Value: 20.6 (Normal: 27.0 - 33.0 pg) Low. Suggests hypochromia (paler red blood cells), often associated with iron-deficiency anemia. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC) Value: 30.3 (Normal: 32.0 - 36.0 g/dL) Slightly low. May reflect reduced hemoglobin in red blood cells, consistent with iron-deficiency anemia. Red Cell Distribution Width (RDW) Value: 15.8% (Normal: 11.0 - 15.0%) Elevated. Indicates variability in red blood cell size, common in iron-deficiency anemia. Platelet Count Value: 397 (Normal: 140 - 400 Thousand/uL) Normal, but on the higher side of the range. Other Key Metrics Absolute Neutrophils, Lymphocytes, Monocytes, Eosinophils, Basophils: All within normal ranges, suggesting no significant abnormalities in immune cell populations. Anisocytosis (1+): Indicates variation in red blood cell size. Hypochromasia (1+): Suggests pale red blood cells, supporting iron-deficiency anemia. Summary These results suggest iron-deficiency anemia, characterized by low hemoglobin, low MCV, low MCH, and high RDW. The elevated red blood cell count may reflect compensatory mechanisms or mild dehydration. Your provider recommends a heart-healthy, low-fat diet, which is great for overall health. However, addressing the anemia might also involve increasing dietary iron or taking iron supplements. The diagnosis is wrong, btw, I don't have iron deficiency. The anemia is caused by a genetic condition called thalassemia, which has been verified by genetic tests. You can use the Mentzer Index to differentiate the two on a simple CBC - https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index Mine numbers return a "probable diagnosis." I was wondering if chatgpt would catch it, nope, it didn't. It did say that it was a possibility once I suggested it though.

code-crapper-69 1y ago

[flagged]

arcanemachiner 1y ago

No, cancer detected!

mvdtnz 1y ago
You're not on Reddit.
- arcanemachiner 1y ago
  I typically respect the decorum here, but I couldn't help myself this time.

dekhn 1y ago

What was the outcome (did the subject of the lab report go on to present cancer)? (sometimes what we think is a false positive ends up being a true positive later, and cancer is a late-arriving signal).

unsupp0rted 1y ago
The lab report clearly described in medical jargon what the sample was, and that the sample was not cancer. There was no reference in the report that the LLM might have pulled out to think otherwise.
- dekhn 1y ago
  I dunno, cancer is complicated. I'd have to see the details to make that judgement. It really depends on a lot of factors- what the nature of the sample was, what the lab report did, etc.