ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
A comparison of large language model-generated and published perioperative neurocognitive disorder recommendations: a cross-sectional web-based analysis.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Regulatory T cells in perioperative neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review with structured narrative synthesis from molecular mechanisms to clinical translation.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical applications of large language models in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Feasibility evaluation of large language models in anesthesia-specific post-operative care instructions for total knee arthroplasty.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Comparison of AI-generated renal diets by different large language models: a guideline-based evaluation with expert input.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative neurocognitive disorders (PNDs) are common complications after surgery and anaesthesia, particularly in older adults, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Therefore, major medical societies have developed recommendations for the prevention and treatment of PNDs. Our study evaluated the reliability of large language models, specifically ChatGPT-4 and Gemini, in generating recommendations for PND management and comparing them with published guidelines.
methodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional web-based analysis over 48 h in June 2024. Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated recommendations were produced in six different locations across five countries (Switzerland, Belgium, Turkey, Canada, and the East and West Coasts of the USA). The English prompt 'a table of a bundle of care for perioperative neurocognitive disorders' was entered into ChatGPT-4 and Gemini, generating tables evaluated by independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were the Total Disagreement Score (TDS) and Quality Assessment of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI), which compared AI-generated recommendations with published guidelines.
resultsThe study generated 14 tables, with TDS and QAMAI scores showing similar results for ChatGPT-4 and Gemini (2 [1-3] vs 2 [2-3], P=0.636 and 4 [4-4] vs 4 [3-4], P=0.424, respectively). AI-generated recommendations aligned well with published guidelines, with the highest alignment observed in ChatGPT-4-generated recommendations. No complete agreement with guidelines was achieved, and lack of cited sources was a noted limitation.
conclusionsLarge language models can generate perioperative neurocognitive disorder recommendations that align closely with published guidelines. However, further validation and integration of clinician feedback are required before clinical application.
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.