ArticleCritical care explorations2024
Incorporating Patient Values in Large Language Model Recommendations for Surrogate and Proxy Decisions.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Enduring Promise of Personalising Patient Preference Prediction.Neuroethics · 2026Review
- From inferring preferences to enabling choice: potentials of digital tools to improve substitute decision-making.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence to measure and predict patient values and preferences: a scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Critical Care Medicine: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Primer on large language models: an educational overview for intensivists.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurrogates, proxies, and clinicians making shared treatment decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity often fail to honor patients' wishes, due to stress, time pressures, misunderstanding patient values, and projecting personal biases. Advance directives intend to align care with patient values but are limited by low completion rates and application to only a subset of medical decisions. Here, we investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to incorporate patient values in supporting critical care clinical decision-making for incapacitated patients in a proof-of-concept study.
methodsWe simulated text-based scenarios for 50 decisionally incapacitated patients for whom a medical condition required imminent clinical decisions regarding specific interventions. For each patient, we also simulated five unique value profiles captured using alternative formats: numeric ranking questionnaires, text-based questionnaires, and free-text narratives. We used pre-trained generative LLMs for two tasks: 1) text extraction of the treatments under consideration and 2) prompt-based question-answering to generate a recommendation in response to the scenario information, extracted treatment, and patient value profiles. Model outputs were compared with adjudications by three domain experts who independently evaluated each scenario and decision. RESULTS AND
conclusionsAutomated extractions of the treatment in question were accurate for 88% (n = 44/50) of scenarios. LLM treatment recommendations received an average Likert score by the adjudicators of 3.92 of 5.00 (five being best) across all patients for being medically plausible and reasonable treatment recommendations, and 3.58 of 5.00 for reflecting the documented values of the patient. Scores were highest when patient values were captured as short, unstructured, and free-text narratives based on simulated patient profiles. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the potential for LLMs to function as support tools for surrogates, proxies, and clinicians aiming to honor the wishes and values of decisionally incapacitated patients.
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.