ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Clinical Management of Wasp Stings Using Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
- Quality Evaluation of Large Language Model-Assisted Generation of Initial Senior Physician Ward Round Records for Patients With Acute Poisoning: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- From Sting to Strain: A Case Report of Wasp Sting-Induced Multiorgan Dysfunction Syndrome.Cureus · 2026Article
- Acute Neurological and Respiratory Complications Induced by Wasp Stings: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with multiple wasp stings in southwest China.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Machine learning enables early risk stratification of hymenopteran stings: evidence from a tropical multicenter cohort.Frontiers in public health · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWasp stings are a significant public health concern in many parts of the world, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. The venom of wasps contains a variety of bioactive compounds that can lead to a wide range of clinical effects, from mild localized pain and swelling to severe, life-threatening allergic reactions, such as anaphylaxis. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in health care, including emergency medicine and toxicology. These models have the potential to assist health care professionals in making fast and informed clinical decisions. This study aimed to assess the performance of 4 leading LLMs-ERNIE Bot 3.5 (Baidu), ERNIE Bot 4.0 (Baidu), Claude Pro (Anthropic), and ChatGPT 4.0-in managing wasp sting cases, with a focus on their accuracy, comprehensiveness, and decision-making abilities.
objectiveThe objective of this research was to systematically evaluate and compare the capabilities of the 4 LLMs in the context of wasp sting management. This involved analyzing their responses to a series of standardized questions and real-world clinical scenarios. The study aimed to determine which LLMs provided the most accurate, complete, and clinically relevant information for the management of wasp stings.
methodsThis study used a cross-sectional design, creating 50 standardized questions that covered 10 key domains in the management of wasp stings, along with 20 real-world clinical case scenarios. Responses from the 4 LLMs were independently evaluated by 8 domain experts, who rated them on a 5-point Likert scale based on accuracy, completeness, and usefulness in clinical decision-making. Statistical comparisons between the models were made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the consistency of expert ratings was assessed using the Kendall coefficient of concordance.
resultsClaude Pro achieved the highest average score of 4.7 (SD 0.603) out of 5, followed closely by ChatGPT 4.0 with a score of 4.5. ERNIE Bot 4.0 and ERNIE Bot 3.5 received average scores of 4 (SD 0.600) and 3.8, respectively. In analyzing the 20 complex clinical cases, Claude Pro significantly outperformed ERNIE Bot 3.5, particularly in areas such as managing complications and assessing the severity of reactions (P<.001). The expert ratings showed moderate agreement (Kendall W=0.67), indicating that the assessments were consistently reliable.
conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that Claude Pro and ChatGPT 4.0 are highly capable of providing accurate and comprehensive support for the clinical management of wasp stings, particularly in complex decision-making scenarios. These findings support the increasing role of AI in emergency and toxicological medicine and suggest that the choice of AI tool should be based on the specific needs of the clinical situation, ensuring that the most appropriate model is selected for different health care applications.
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.