ArticleAEM education and training2024
ChatG-PD? Comparing large language model artificial intelligence and faculty rankings of the competitiveness of standardized letters of evaluation.
Article in AEM education and training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 30-year History of the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While faculty have previously been shown to have high levels of agreement about the competitiveness of emergency medicine (EM) standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs), reviewing SLOEs remains a highly time-intensive process for faculty. Artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for effectively analyzing large volumes of data across a variety of contexts, but their ability to interpret SLOEs is unknown. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the ability of LLMs to rate EM SLOEs on competitiveness compared to faculty consensus and previously developed algorithms. Methods: Fifty mock SLOE letters were drafted and analyzed seven times by a data-focused LLM with instructions to rank them based on desirability for residency. The LLM was also asked to use its own criteria to decide which characteristics are most important for residency and revise its ranking of the SLOEs. LLM-generated rank lists were compared with faculty consensus rankings. Results: There was a high degree of correlation ( Conclusions: The LLM generated rankings showed strong correlation with expert faculty consensus rankings with minimal input of faculty time and effort.
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.