Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875696›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Triage Performance Across Large Language Models, ChatGPT, and Untrained Doctors in Emergency Medicine: Comparative Study.

Lars Masanneck, Linea Schmidt, Antonia Seifert, Tristan Kölsche, Niklas Huntemann, Robin Jansen, Mohammed Mehsin, Michael Bernhard, Sven G Meuth, Lennert Böhm and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Artificial Intelligence Can Direct Patients Toward a Complaint-specific Musculoskeletal Provider.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Design principles for integrated AI alignment.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

11 authors.

Lars MasanneckDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2496-1415
Linea SchmidtDigital Health Center, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0009-0006-3014-4058
Antonia SeifertEmergency Department, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-3995-5477
Tristan KölscheDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-4075-669X
Niklas HuntemannDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0015-8484
Robin JansenDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0009-0005-8492-7595
Mohammed MehsinDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0009-0006-9880-3881
Michael BernhardEmergency Department, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1179-7943
Sven G MeuthDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2571-3501
Lennert BöhmEmergency Department, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0123-5269
Marc PawlitzkiDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3080-2277

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Emergency MedicineTriageEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleGermanyHumansLanguagePhysiciansartificial intelligenceChatGPTcohortcomparative studydigital healthdoctordoctorsemergency medicineGermanGermanylarge language modelspersonnelstafftriageuntrained doctors

Identifiers

PMID38875696
PMCPMC11214027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.