ArticleJMIR AI2025
Generative Large Language Model-Powered Conversational AI App for Personalized Risk Assessment: Case Study in COVID-19.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Acceptance Criteria Framework for Determining the Implementation Fit of Custom Large Language Models in Public Health Interventions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Authors' Reply: Toward Retrieval-Grounded Evaluation for Conversational Large Language Model-Based Risk Assessment.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Toward Retrieval-Grounded Evaluation for Conversational Large Language Model-Based Risk Assessment.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Large Language Models Using Clinical Text in Pediatrics: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Usability and adoption in a randomized trial of GutGPT a GenAI tool for gastrointestinal bleeding.NPJ digital medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated powerful capabilities in natural language tasks and are increasingly being integrated into health care for tasks like disease risk assessment. Traditional machine learning methods rely on structured data and coding, limiting their flexibility in dynamic clinical environments. This study presents a novel approach to disease risk assessment using generative LLMs through conversational artificial intelligence (AI), eliminating the need for programming.
objectiveThis study evaluates the use of pretrained generative LLMs, including LLaMA2-7b and Flan-T5-xl, for COVID-19 severity prediction with the goal of enabling a real-time, no-code, risk assessment solution through chatbot-based, question-answering interactions. To contextualize their performance, we compare LLMs with traditional machine learning classifiers, such as logistic regression, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and random forest, which rely on tabular data.
methodsWe fine-tuned LLMs using few-shot natural language examples from a dataset of 393 pediatric patients, developing a mobile app that integrates these models to provide real-time, no-code, COVID-19 severity risk assessment through clinician-patient interaction. The LLMs were compared with traditional classifiers across different experimental settings, using the area under the curve (AUC) as the primary evaluation metric. Feature importance derived from LLM attention layers was also analyzed to enhance interpretability.
resultsGenerative LLMs demonstrated strong performance in low-data settings. In zero-shot scenarios, the T0-3b-T model achieved an AUC of 0.75, while other LLMs, such as T0pp(8bit)-T and Flan-T5-xl-T, reached 0.67 and 0.69, respectively. At 2-shot settings, logistic regression and random forest achieved an AUC of 0.57, while Flan-T5-xl-T and T0-3b-T obtained 0.69 and 0.65, respectively. By 32-shot settings, Flan-T5-xl-T reached 0.70, similar to logistic regression (0.69) and random forest (0.68), while XGBoost improved to 0.65. These results illustrate the differences in how generative LLMs and traditional models handle the increasing data availability. LLMs perform well in low-data scenarios, whereas traditional models rely more on structured tabular data and labeled training examples. Furthermore, the mobile app provides real-time, COVID-19 severity assessments and personalized insights through attention-based feature importance, adding value to the clinical interpretation of the results.
conclusionsGenerative LLMs provide a robust alternative to traditional classifiers, particularly in scenarios with limited labeled data. Their ability to handle unstructured inputs and deliver personalized, real-time assessments without coding makes them highly adaptable to clinical settings. This study underscores the potential of LLM-powered conversational artificial intelligence (AI) in health care and encourages further exploration of its use for real-time, disease risk assessment and decision-making support.
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.