When you read through the article it shows that the gap between doctors and LLMs actually disappeared (in terms of statistical significance) once both were allowed to read the full case notes.

The headline is quoting a number based on guessed diagnoses from nurse's notes. The LLM was happier to take guesses from the selected case studies than the doctors is my guess.

Not only is the study testing something which only vaguely resembles how doctors diagnose patients, but isolated accuracy percentages are also a terrible way to measure healthcare quality.

If 90% of patients have a cold, and 10% have metastatic aneuristic super-boneitis, then you can get 90% accuracy by saying every patient has a cold. I would expect a probabilistic token-prediction machine to be good at that. But hopefully, you can see why a human doctor might accept scoring a lower accuracy percentage, if it means they follow up with more tests that catch the 10% boneitis.