ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Diagnostic efficacy of large language models in the pediatric emergency department: a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Expert Evaluation of Multimodal Large Language Models for Pediatric Rash Diagnosis: Clinical Utility, Safety, Information Quality, and Readability.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From nonagentic large language models to multiagent systems in emergency medicine: a scoping review.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond accuracy metrics: Toward responsible integration of large language models in pediatric diagnostic reasoning.Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Large-language-models for pediatric diagnosis: Performance evaluation using real-world clinical notes from common and rare cases.Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of recent and prior large language models and pediatric residents on pediatric in-training examination questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Digital Diagnostic Odyssey: Artificial Intelligence and Social Media Crowdsourcing Amid Pediatric Neurology Access Gaps.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini in detecting external apical root resorption on panoramic radiographs of orthodontic patients : Artificial intelligence performance in detecting root resorption.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) faces significant challenges, such as high patient volumes, time-sensitive decisions, and complex diagnoses. Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to enhance patient care; however, their effectiveness in supporting the diagnostic process remains uncertain, with studies showing mixed results regarding their impact on clinical reasoning. We aimed to assess LLM-based chatbots performance in realistic PED scenarios, and to explore their use as diagnosis-making assistants in pediatric emergency. Methods: We evaluated the diagnostic effectiveness of 5 LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Llama-3-8B, and ChatGPT-4o mini) compared to 23 physicians (including 10 PED physicians, 6 PED residents, and 7 Emergency Medicine residents). Both LLMs and physicians had to provide one primary diagnosis and two differential diagnoses for 80 real-practice pediatric clinical cases from the PED of a tertiary care Children's Hospital, with three different levels of diagnostic complexity. The responses from both LLMs and physicians were compared to the final diagnoses assigned upon patient discharge; two independent experts evaluated the answers using a five-level accuracy scale. Each physician or LLM received a total score out of 80, based on the sum of all answer points. Results: The best performing chatbots were ChatGPT-4o (score: 72.5) and Gemini 1.5 Pro (score: 62.75), the first performing better ( Discussion: ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro could be a valid tool for ED physicians, supporting clinical decision-making without replacing the physician's judgment. Shared protocols for effective collaboration between AI chatbots and healthcare professionals are needed.
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.