Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39348189›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Accuracy of a Commercial Large Language Model (ChatGPT) to Perform Disaster Triage of Simulated Patients Using the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) Protocol: Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility Study.

Jeffrey Micheal Franc, Attila Julius Hertelendy, Lenard Cheng, Ryan Hata, Manuela Verde

Abstract read
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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 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. Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Jeffrey Micheal FrancDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2421-3479
Attila Julius HertelendyDepartment of Information Systems and Business Analytics, College of Business, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6174-0289
Lenard ChengEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-1588-123X
Ryan HataDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3687-9593
Manuela VerdeCRIMEDIM-Center for Research and Training in Disaster Medicine, Humanitarian Aid and Global Health, Universita' del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0476-1723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe release of ChatGPT (OpenAI) in November 2022 drastically reduced the barrier to using artificial intelligence by allowing a simple web-based text interface to a large language model (LLM). One use case where ChatGPT could be useful is in triaging patients at the site of a disaster using the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) protocol. However, LLMs experience several common errors including hallucinations (also called confabulations) and prompt dependency.

objectiveThis study addresses the research problem: "Can ChatGPT adequately triage simulated disaster patients using the START protocol?" by measuring three outcomes: repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy.

methodsNine prompts were developed by 5 disaster medicine physicians. A Python script queried ChatGPT Version 4 for each prompt combined with 391 validated simulated patient vignettes. Ten repetitions of each combination were performed for a total of 35,190 simulated triages. A reference standard START triage code for each simulated case was assigned by 2 disaster medicine specialists (JMF and MV), with a third specialist (LC) added if the first two did not agree. Results were evaluated using a gage repeatability and reproducibility study (gage R and R). Repeatability was defined as variation due to repeated use of the same prompt. Reproducibility was defined as variation due to the use of different prompts on the same patient vignette. Accuracy was defined as agreement with the reference standard.

resultsAlthough 35,102 (99.7%) queries returned a valid START score, there was considerable variability. Repeatability (use of the same prompt repeatedly) was 14% of the overall variation. Reproducibility (use of different prompts) was 4.1% of the overall variation. The accuracy of ChatGPT for START was 63.9% with a 32.9% overtriage rate and a 3.1% undertriage rate. Accuracy varied by prompt with a maximum of 71.8% and a minimum of 46.7%.

conclusionsThis study indicates that ChatGPT version 4 is insufficient to triage simulated disaster patients via the START protocol. It demonstrated suboptimal repeatability and reproducibility. The overall accuracy of triage was only 63.9%. Health care professionals are advised to exercise caution while using commercial LLMs for vital medical determinations, given that these tools may commonly produce inaccurate data, colloquially referred to as hallucinations or confabulations. Artificial intelligence-guided tools should undergo rigorous statistical evaluation-using methods such as gage R and R-before implementation into clinical settings.

Indexed as

TriageDisaster MedicineDisastersHumansPatient SimulationReproducibility of Resultsaccuracyaccurateartificial intelligenceChatGPTdisasterdisaster medicinedisastersemergenciesemergencyGPTlanguage modellanguage modelslarge language modelsLLMLLMsnatural language processingNLPrepeatabilityrepeatablereproducibilityreproducibletriage

Identifiers

PMID39348189
PMCPMC11474136

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.