Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39101368›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2025

Augmenting intensive care unit nursing practice with generative AI: A formative study of diagnostic synergies using simulation-based clinical cases.

Chedva Levin, Moriya Suliman, Etti Naimi, Mor Saban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

4 authors.

Chedva LevinNursing Department, Faculty of School of Life and Health Sciences, The Jerusalem College of Technology-lev Academic Center, Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-3336-4279
Moriya SulimanIntensive Care Unit, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Etti NaimiDepartment of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Mor SabanDepartment of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceCritical Care NursingIntensive Care UnitsNursing Staff, HospitalAdultClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedclinical scenariosdecision‐makingdiagnostic accuracygenerative artificial intelligenceintensive care units

Identifiers

PMID39101368
PMCPMC12181158

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.