Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40481529›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025

A large language model improves clinicians' diagnostic performance in complex critical illness cases.

Xintong Wu, Yu Huang, Qing He

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A pragmatic risk-stratified framework for using large language models in intensive care medicine: A narrative review.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Artificial Intelligence: Reframing Critical Appraisal in Emergency Medicine.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xintong Wu *Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yu Huang *Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. huangyu0120er@126.com.
Qing HeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in assisting clinical decision-making. However, studies evaluating LLMs' diagnostic performance on complex critical illness cases are lacking. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and response quality of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and evaluate its potential benefits in assisting critical care residents with differential diagnosis of complex cases.

methodsThis prospective comparative study collected challenging critical illness cases from the literature. Critical care residents from tertiary teaching hospitals were recruited and randomly assigned to non-AI-assisted physician and AI-assisted physician groups. We selected a reasoning model, DeepSeek-R1, for our study. We evaluated the model's response quality using Likert scales, and we compared the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency between groups.

resultsA total of 48 cases were included. Thirty-two critical care residents were recruited, with 16 residents assigned to each group. Each resident handled an average of 3 cases. DeepSeek-R1's responses received median Likert grades of 4.0 (IQR 4.0-5.0; 95% CI 4.0-4.5) for completeness, 5.0 (IQR 4.0-5.0; 95% CI 4.5-5.0) for clarity, and 5.0 (IQR 4.0-5.0; 95% CI 4.0-5.0) for usefulness. The AI model's top diagnosis accuracy was 60% (29/48; 95% CI 0.456-0.729), with a median differential diagnosis quality score of 5.0 (IQR 4.0-5.0; 95% CI 4.5-5.0). Top diagnosis accuracy was 27% (13/48; 95% CI 0.146-0.396) in the non-AI-assisted physician group versus 58% (28/48; 95% CI 0.438-0.729) in the AI-assisted physician group. Median differential quality scores were 3.0 (IQR 0-5.0; 95% CI 2.0-4.0) without and 5.0 (IQR 3.0-5.0; 95% CI 3.0-5.0) with AI assistance. The AI model showed higher diagnostic accuracy than residents, and AI assistance significantly improved residents' accuracy. The residents' diagnostic time significantly decreased with AI assistance (median, 972 s; IQR 570-1320; 95% CI 675-1200) versus without (median, 1920 s; IQR 1320-2640; 95% CI 1710-2370).

conclusionsFor diagnostically difficult critical illness cases, DeepSeek-R1 generates high-quality information, achieves reasonable diagnostic accuracy, and significantly improves residents' diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Reasoning models are suggested to be promising diagnostic adjuncts in intensive care units.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCritical IllnessAdultArtificial IntelligenceCritical CareFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsInternship and ResidencyLarge Language ModelsMaleProspective StudiesCritical careDiagnostic dilemmasGenerative artificial intelligenceReasoning models

Identifiers

PMID40481529
PMCPMC12143052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.