ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Performance of emergency triage prediction of an open access natural language processing based chatbot application (ChatGPT): A preliminary, scenario-based cross-sectional study.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of large language models for emergency department triage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of the large language model ChatGPT in adult emergency department triage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Improving triage performance in emergency departments using machine learning and natural language processing: a systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- A real-world feasibility evaluation of LLM-based clinical prediction: emergency department return visit admission across two academic medical centers.Research square · 2026Article
- Understanding uncertainty in large language model predictions of early death in critically ill patients: a conformal prediction approach.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Comparison of Intern Doctors and ChatGPT in Emergency Cases Assessment.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT compete with emergency medicine specialists? A two-stage assessment of ECG interpretation supported by clinical information.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Understanding Uncertainty in Large Language Model Predictions of Early Death in Critically Ill Patients: A Conformal Prediction Approach.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Safety and accuracy of AI in triaging patients in the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Performance and Communication Skills of ChatGPT Versus Physicians in Emergency Medicine: Simulated Patient Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Advancing emergency upper extremity care: A pilot study of ChatGPT's potential role in diagnosing and managing hand and wrist trauma.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of triage performance among DRP tool, ChatGPT, and outpatient rehabilitation doctors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Triage of Patient Messages Sent to the Eye Clinic via the Electronic Medical Record: A Comparative Study on AI and Human Triage Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Preliminary evaluation of ChatGPT model iterations in emergency department diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analyzing evaluation methods for large language models in the medical field: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Emergency department triaging using ChatGPT based on emergency severity index principles: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Triage Performance Across Large Language Models, ChatGPT, and Untrained Doctors in Emergency Medicine: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesArtificial intelligence companies have been increasing their initiatives recently to improve the results of chatbots, which are software programs that can converse with a human in natural language. The role of chatbots in health care is deemed worthy of research. OpenAI's ChatGPT is a supervised and empowered machine learning-based chatbot. The aim of this study was to determine the performance of ChatGPT in emergency medicine (EM) triage prediction.
methodsThis was a preliminary, cross-sectional study conducted with case scenarios generated by the researchers based on the emergency severity index (ESI) handbook v4 cases. Two independent EM specialists who were experts in the ESI triage scale determined the triage categories for each case. A third independent EM specialist was consulted as arbiter, if necessary. Consensus results for each case scenario were assumed as the reference triage category. Subsequently, each case scenario was queried with ChatGPT and the answer was recorded as the index triage category. Inconsistent classifications between the ChatGPT and reference category were defined as over-triage (false positive) or under-triage (false negative).
resultsFifty case scenarios were assessed in the study. Reliability analysis showed a fair agreement between EM specialists and ChatGPT (Cohen's Kappa: 0.341). Eleven cases (22%) were over triaged and 9 (18%) cases were under triaged by ChatGPT. In 9 cases (18%), ChatGPT reported two consecutive triage categories, one of which matched the expert consensus. It had an overall sensitivity of 57.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-78.2), specificity of 34.5% (95% CI: 17.9-54.3), positive predictive value (PPV) of 38.7% (95% CI: 21.8-57.8), negative predictive value (NPV) of 52.6 (95% CI: 28.9-75.6), and an F1 score of 0.461. In high acuity cases (ESI-1 and ESI-2), ChatGPT showed a sensitivity of 76.2% (95% CI: 52.8-91.8), specificity of 93.1% (95% CI: 77.2-99.2), PPV of 88.9% (95% CI: 65.3-98.6), NPV of 84.4 (95% CI: 67.2-94.7), and an F1 score of 0.821. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.846 (95% CI: 0.724-0.969,
conclusionThe performance of ChatGPT was best when predicting high acuity cases (ESI-1 and ESI-2). It may be useful when determining the cases requiring critical care. When trained with more medical knowledge, ChatGPT may be more accurate for other triage category predictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.