ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Triage Performance Across Large Language Models, ChatGPT, and Untrained Doctors in Emergency Medicine: Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 2 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Laboratory Medicine Decision Support-Beyond Exam Passing: A Blinded 100-Case Text-Based Benchmark of Diagnostic Accuracy, Management Quality, and Safety for ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek-LLM Decision Support in Laboratory Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing acuity in pediatric emergency department triage: performance of a large language model.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Can Direct Patients Toward a Complaint-specific Musculoskeletal Provider.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Evaluating the First CE-Marked LLM-Based Chatbot for Evidence-Based Neurology.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Design principles for integrated AI alignment.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- From Promising Capabilities to Pervasive Bias: Assessing Large Language Models for Emergency Department Triage.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- A real-world feasibility evaluation of LLM-based clinical prediction: emergency department return visit admission across two academic medical centers.Research square · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Deep-Reasoning Large Language Models for Ophthalmic Emergencies.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Machine learning outperforms large language models for survival prediction in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Generative AI vs web search for patient education: a comparative evaluation of OSA information quality.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Performance of Large Language Models on Exam-style Questions and Case Challenges Across Varying Levels of Complexity.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Disclaimers and Referral Patterns for Medical Advice Across Urgency Levels: Large Language Model Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Bridging the Precision Gap in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Spatial Transcriptomics, Spatial Proteomics, and Artificial Intelligence in Precision Health.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in emergency gastrointestinal procedures: a review of current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performances in various medical domains, prompting an exploration of their potential utility within the high-demand setting of emergency department (ED) triage. This study evaluated the triage proficiency of different LLMs and ChatGPT, an LLM-based chatbot, compared to professionally trained ED staff and untrained personnel. We further explored whether LLM responses could guide untrained staff in effective triage.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the efficacy of LLMs and the associated product ChatGPT in ED triage compared to personnel of varying training status and to investigate if the models' responses can enhance the triage proficiency of untrained personnel.
methodsA total of 124 anonymized case vignettes were triaged by untrained doctors; different versions of currently available LLMs; ChatGPT; and professionally trained raters, who subsequently agreed on a consensus set according to the Manchester Triage System (MTS). The prototypical vignettes were adapted from cases at a tertiary ED in Germany. The main outcome was the level of agreement between raters' MTS level assignments, measured via quadratic-weighted Cohen κ. The extent of over- and undertriage was also determined. Notably, instances of ChatGPT were prompted using zero-shot approaches without extensive background information on the MTS. The tested LLMs included raw GPT-4, Llama 3 70B, Gemini 1.5, and Mixtral 8x7b.
resultsGPT-4-based ChatGPT and untrained doctors showed substantial agreement with the consensus triage of professional raters (κ=mean 0.67, SD 0.037 and κ=mean 0.68, SD 0.056, respectively), significantly exceeding the performance of GPT-3.5-based ChatGPT (κ=mean 0.54, SD 0.024; P<.001). When untrained doctors used this LLM for second-opinion triage, there was a slight but statistically insignificant performance increase (κ=mean 0.70, SD 0.047; P=.97). Other tested LLMs performed similar to or worse than GPT-4-based ChatGPT or showed odd triaging behavior with the used parameters. LLMs and ChatGPT models tended toward overtriage, whereas untrained doctors undertriaged.
conclusionsWhile LLMs and the LLM-based product ChatGPT do not yet match professionally trained raters, their best models' triage proficiency equals that of untrained ED doctors. In its current form, LLMs or ChatGPT thus did not demonstrate gold-standard performance in ED triage and, in the setting of this study, failed to significantly improve untrained doctors' triage when used as decision support. Notable performance enhancements in newer LLM versions over older ones hint at future improvements with further technological development and specific training.
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.