ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2025
Augmenting intensive care unit nursing practice with generative AI: A formative study of diagnostic synergies using simulation-based clinical cases.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Promise and Peril of Generative AI in Nursing: Moving Beyond Hype Toward Responsible Innovation.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Technology use in pediatric cardiovascular surgery intensive care nursing: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Advantages and challenges for utilization of generative artificial intelligence in clinical nursing practice: an integrative review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- A latent profile analysis of artificial intelligence literacy among undergraduate nursing students: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- When and How Head Nurses' Ethical Leadership Shapes Nurses' Creative Patient Service: The Roles of Ethical Generative AI Usage and AI Compatibility.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- An Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Nursing: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Can large language models assist with pediatric dosing accuracy?Pediatric research · 2025Article
- The In-depth Comparative Analysis of Four Large Language AI Models for Risk Assessment and Information Retrieval from Multi-Modality Prostate Cancer Work-up Reports.The world journal of men's health · 2025Article
- Structural equation modeling for influencing factors on behavioral intention to adopt medical AI among Chinese nurses: a nationwide cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Augmenting intensive care unit nursing practice with generative AI: A formative study of diagnostic synergies using simulation-based clinical cases.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Decision-Making: A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Impacts.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in intensive care unit nursing: A narrative review (2020-2025).Digital healthReview
- Augmenting Community Nursing Practice With Generative AI: A Formative Study of Diagnostic Synergies Using Simulation-Based Clinical Cases.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools continue advancing, rigorous evaluations are needed to understand their capabilities relative to experienced clinicians and nurses. The aim of this study was to objectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and response formats of ICU nurses versus various GenAI models, with a qualitative interpretation of the quantitative results.
methodsThis formative study utilized four written clinical scenarios representative of real ICU patient cases to simulate diagnostic challenges. The scenarios were developed by expert nurses and underwent validation against current literature. Seventy-four ICU nurses participated in a simulation-based assessment involving four written clinical scenarios. Simultaneously, we asked ChatGPT-4 and Claude-2.0 to provide initial assessments and treatment recommendations for the same scenarios. The responses from ChatGPT-4 and Claude-2.0 were then scored by certified ICU nurses for accuracy, completeness and response.
resultsNurses consistently achieved higher diagnostic accuracy than AI across open-ended scenarios, though certain models matched or exceeded human performance on standardized cases. Reaction times also diverged substantially. Qualitative response format differences emerged such as concision versus verbosity. Variations in GenAI models system performance across cases highlighted generalizability challenges.
conclusionsWhile GenAI demonstrated valuable skills, experienced nurses outperformed in open-ended domains requiring holistic judgement. Continued development to strengthen generalized decision-making abilities is warranted before autonomous clinical integration. Response format interfaces should consider leveraging distinct strengths. Rigorous mixed methods research involving diverse stakeholders can help iteratively inform safe, beneficial human-GenAI partnerships centred on experience-guided care augmentation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This mixed-methods simulation study provides formative insights into optimizing collaborative models of GenAI and nursing knowledge to support patient assessment and decision-making in intensive care. The findings can help guide development of explainable GenAI decision support tailored for critical care environments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients or public were not involved in the design and implementation of the study or the analysis and interpretation of the data.
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.