ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Leveraging large language models for patient-ventilator asynchrony detection.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in mechanical ventilation: a narrative review of clinical applications and research gaps.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Large language models in emergency and critical care medicine: a comprehensive review of applications, challenges, and future directions.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
objectivesThe objective of this study is to evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can achieve performance comparable to expert-developed deep neural networks in detecting flow starvation (FS) asynchronies during mechanical ventilation.
methodsPopular LLMs (GPT-4, Claude-3.5, Gemini-1.5, DeepSeek-R1) were tested on a dataset of 6500 airway pressure cycles from 28 patients, classifying breaths into three FS categories. They were also tasked with generating executable code for one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN-1D) and Long Short-Term Memory networks. Model performances were assessed using repeated holdout validation and compared with expert-developed models.
resultsLLMs performed poorly in direct FS classification (accuracy: GPT-4: 0.497; Claude-3.5: 0.627; Gemini-1.5: 0.544, DeepSeek-R1: 0.520). However, Claude-3.5-generated CNN-1D code achieved the highest accuracy (0.902 (0.899-0.906)), outperforming expert-developed models. DISCUSSION: LLMs demonstrated limited capability in direct classification but excelled in generating effective neural network models with minimal human intervention. This suggests LLMs' potential in accelerating model development for clinical applications, particularly for detecting patient-ventilator asynchronies, though their clinical implementation requires further validation and consideration of ethical factors.
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.