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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Readability, Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of ChatGPT-Generated GI Patient Education Versus AGA Patient Center".Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Large Language Model Translation of BI-RADS Breast Imaging Reports into Arabic: A Blinded Expert Evaluation of Diagnostic Communication Safety.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From Promising Capabilities to Pervasive Bias: Assessing Large Language Models for Emergency Department Triage.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Consistency in causal reasoning for large language models in scenarios of HIV antiretroviral treatment, drug interactions, and side effects.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI chatbots for providing health advice on occupational sedentary behavior in the workplace.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2 responses to frequently asked questions about benign bone tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical validation of the Hilab lens for AI supported point of care CBC testing in pediatric oncology.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and Triage Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on Short Clinical Vignettes.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Evaluating the perspectives of ChatGPT and Gemini on glenohumeral osteoarthritis management.JSES international · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and reference intervals: a comparative analysis of repeatability in GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, and GPT-4o.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.