ArticleNature and science of sleep2025
Simulation-Based Evaluation of Large Language Models for Comorbidity Detection in Sleep Medicine - a Pilot Study on ChatGPT o1 Preview.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2025. 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.
- Performance of nine large language models on real-world polysomnography interpretation for obstructive sleep apnea: a multi-dimensional comparative analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Comorbidity Classification from Clinical Free-Text using Large Language Models: Application to Sleep Disorder Patients.Journal of medical systems · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Timely identification of comorbidities is critical in sleep medicine, where large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are currently emerging as transformative tools. Here, we investigate whether the novel LLM ChatGPT o1 preview can identify individual health risks or potentially existing comorbidities from the medical data of fictitious sleep medicine patients. Methods: We conducted a simulation-based study using 30 fictitious patients, designed to represent realistic variations in demographic and clinical parameters commonly seen in sleep medicine. Each profile included personal data (eg, body mass index, smoking status, drinking habits), blood pressure, and routine blood test results, along with a predefined sleep medicine diagnosis. Each patient profile was evaluated independently by the LLM and a sleep medicine specialist (SMS) for identification of potential comorbidities or individual health risks. Their recommendations were compared for concordance across lifestyle changes and further medical measures. Results: The LLM achieved high concordance with the SMS for lifestyle modification recommendations, including 100% concordance on smoking cessation (κ = 1; p < 0.001), 97% on alcohol reduction (κ = 0.92; p < 0.001) and endocrinological examination (κ = 0.92; p < 0.001) or 93% on weight loss (κ = 0.86; p < 0.001). However, it exhibited a tendency to over-recommend further medical measures (particularly 57% concordance for cardiological examination (κ = 0.08; p = 0.28) and 33% for gastrointestinal examination (κ = 0.1; p = 0.22)) compared to the SMS. Conclusion: Despite the obvious limitation of using fictitious data, the findings suggest that LLMs like ChatGPT have the potential to complement clinical workflows in sleep medicine by identifying individual health risks and comorbidities. As LLMs continue to evolve, their integration into healthcare could redefine the approach to patient evaluation and risk stratification. Future research should contextualize the findings within broader clinical applications ideally testing locally run LLMs meeting data protection requirements.
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.