ArticleCureus2025
Diagnostic Performance of a Large Language Model for Determining the Cause of Death: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical History, Postmortem Computed Tomography Findings, and Their Integration.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study evaluates the diagnostic performance of a large language model (LLM) in determining causes of death by comparing three different information sources.
methodsA total of 150 consecutive adult in-hospital cadavers underwent postmortem CT and pathological autopsy (2009-2013). The diagnostic accuracy of Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic, San Francisco, California) was evaluated in determining both underlying and immediate causes of death using three different information sources (clinical history alone, postmortem CT findings alone as documented by radiologists in their reports, and their integration). For each case, the LLM provided a primary diagnosis and two differential diagnoses. The autopsy result was used as the reference standard to assess accuracy.
resultsFor underlying causes, the integration of both sources achieved significantly higher accuracy (78.0%) compared with the clinical history alone (69.3%) or the CT findings alone (42.0%) (p<0.001). When considering either primary or differential diagnoses, the accuracy reached 84.7% with integrated sources, 78.0% with clinical history alone, and 58.7% with CT findings alone. For immediate causes, the integrated approach showed higher accuracy in the primary diagnosis (61.3%) than the clinical history alone (52.0%) and CT findings alone (46.7%) (p<0.001). Disease-specific diagnostic accuracy analyses revealed marked variations, with hematologic malignancies showing the most significant differences among information sources (clinical history: 78.9%, CT findings alone: 36.8%, integrated analysis: 85.7%; p=0.003).
conclusionIntegrating postmortem CT findings with clinical history enhances LLM-based cause-of-death determination accuracy, demonstrating the value of multiple information sources while highlighting opportunities for disease-specific diagnostic optimization.
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.