The take that frontier models aren't ready for use in medicine is dead wrong. I've been using Opus 4.x in my clinical workflow every day for…

The take that frontier models aren't ready for use in medicine is dead wrong. I've been using Opus 4.x in my clinical workflow every day for 6 months. I'm a deep sub-sub-specialist in dermatology - the cases other derms refer out. It's better than me, in my exact niche, after 25 years of reading and seeing patients. Not even close. All it takes is a system prompt, some tool access, and a few references in the project files. So when a Nature Medicine paper concludes frontier models are "not ready" for medicine, I read the methods. They tested naked models. No system prompt. No tools. No references. Single-shot multiple choice. Nobody would ever use them that way. It's like taking somebody who just finished the first two years of med school, aced Step 1 of the USMLE, giving them zero access to reference materials and asking them to take the final board exam for someone who's had 6 additional years of clinical experience. Then when they fail, pretending it's evidence that humans aren't ready to practice medicine. That'd be obviously wrong and this take on frontier models in medicine is just as wrong. We stress tested many frontier AI models for multimodal medical reasoning (including GPT-5, Claude 3.5, Gemini 2.5 Pro). They’re not ready. Faulty reasoning, use of inappropriate shortcuts, hallucinations. Published today @NatureMedicine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026…

Source: Jeremy Howard (X) | 2026-06-27