Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38728687›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

The Role of Large Language Models in Transforming Emergency Medicine: Scoping Review.

Carl Preiksaitis, Nicholas Ashenburg, Gabrielle Bunney, Andrew Chu, Rana Kabeer, Fran Riley, Ryan Ribeira, Christian Rose

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06796036 (Conversational AI in Tactical Casualty Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06796036 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Conversational AI in Tactical Casualty Care: Baseline GPT-4o Improves Combat Medic Decision-Making

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharles University, Czech RepublicRan2025 to 2025Enrolled42ConditionsArtificial IntelligenceArmsCombat Medic Decision-Making with and without artificial intelligence assistance
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Artificial intelligence as cognitive support in emergency medicine.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Carl PreiksaitisDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3856-0068
Nicholas AshenburgDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-6248
Gabrielle BunneyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6120-9997
Andrew ChuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4282-9322
Rana KabeerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6780-2740
Fran RileyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0884-3585
Ryan RibeiraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4782-2410
Christian RoseDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5115-649X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), more specifically large language models (LLMs), holds significant potential in revolutionizing emergency care delivery by optimizing clinical workflows and enhancing the quality of decision-making. Although enthusiasm for integrating LLMs into emergency medicine (EM) is growing, the existing literature is characterized by a disparate collection of individual studies, conceptual analyses, and preliminary implementations. Given these complexities and gaps in understanding, a cohesive framework is needed to comprehend the existing body of knowledge on the application of LLMs in EM.

objectiveGiven the absence of a comprehensive framework for exploring the roles of LLMs in EM, this scoping review aims to systematically map the existing literature on LLMs' potential applications within EM and identify directions for future research. Addressing this gap will allow for informed advancements in the field.

methodsUsing PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) criteria, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2018 and August 2023 that discussed LLMs' use in EM. We excluded other forms of AI. A total of 1994 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and each full-text paper was independently reviewed by 2 authors. Data were abstracted independently, and 5 authors performed a collaborative quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the data.

resultsA total of 43 papers were included. Studies were predominantly from 2022 to 2023 and conducted in the United States and China. We uncovered four major themes: (1) clinical decision-making and support was highlighted as a pivotal area, with LLMs playing a substantial role in enhancing patient care, notably through their application in real-time triage, allowing early recognition of patient urgency; (2) efficiency, workflow, and information management demonstrated the capacity of LLMs to significantly boost operational efficiency, particularly through the automation of patient record synthesis, which could reduce administrative burden and enhance patient-centric care; (3) risks, ethics, and transparency were identified as areas of concern, especially regarding the reliability of LLMs' outputs, and specific studies highlighted the challenges of ensuring unbiased decision-making amidst potentially flawed training data sets, stressing the importance of thorough validation and ethical oversight; and (4) education and communication possibilities included LLMs' capacity to enrich medical training, such as through using simulated patient interactions that enhance communication skills.

conclusionsLLMs have the potential to fundamentally transform EM, enhancing clinical decision-making, optimizing workflows, and improving patient outcomes. This review sets the stage for future advancements by identifying key research areas: prospective validation of LLM applications, establishing standards for responsible use, understanding provider and patient perceptions, and improving physicians' AI literacy. Effective integration of LLMs into EM will require collaborative efforts and thorough evaluation to ensure these technologies can be safely and effectively applied.

Indexed as

AIAI literacyartificial intelligenceBardBERTBidirectional Encoder Representations from TransformersChatGPTChinaclinical decision supportcommunicationdecision supporteducationemergency careemergency medicineethicsgenerative pretrained transformerGPThealth literacylarge language modelLLMmedical educationmedical trainingMed-PaLMnatural language processingNLPPathways Language ModelphysicianPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAriskscoping reviewUnited StatesUSworkflow efficiency

Identifiers

PMID38728687
PMCPMC11127144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.