ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2025
Evaluation of Six Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support: Application in Transfusion Decision-making for RhD Blood-type Patients.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4o as an Educational Support Tool for the Emergency Management of Dental Trauma: Randomized Controlled Study Among Students.JMIR medical education · 2025Trial
- An automatic consult reply system for therapeutic plasma exchange using retrieval-augmented generation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Performance of Advanced Large Language Models in Laboratory Medicine Using Residency Examinations.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Large Language Model Advances in Transfusion Medicine: From Answering Questions to Supporting Clinical Decisions.Annals of laboratory 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: : Large language models (LLMs) have the potential for clinical decision support; however, their use in specific tasks, such as determining the RhD blood type for transfusion, remains underexplored. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy of six LLMs in addressing RhD blood type-related issues in Korean healthcare. Methods: : Fifteen multiple-choice and true/false questions, based on real-world transfusion scenarios and reviewed by specialists, were developed. The questions were administered twice to six LLMs (Clova X, Gemini 1.0, Gemini 1.5, ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, and GPT-4o) in both Korean and English. Results: were compared against the performance of 22 transfusion medicine experts. For particularly challenging questions, prompt engineering was applied, and the questions were reevaluated. Results: : GPT-4o demonstrated the highest accuracy rate in Korean (0.6), with significant differences compared with those of Clova X and Gemini ( Conclusions: : GPT-4o showed the best overall performance among the models tested and may be beneficial in RhD blood product transfusion decision-making. However, its performance suggests that it may serve best in a supportive role rather than as a primary decision-making tool.
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.