Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668511›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025

Evaluating large language models on hospital health data for automated emergency triage.

Carlos Lafuente, Mehdi Rahim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Carlos LafuenteDSIC, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain. carvill3@posgrado.upv.es.
Mehdi RahimR&D, Air Liquide, Les Loges-en-Josas, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLarge language models (LLMs) have a significant potential in healthcare due to their ability to process unstructured text from electronic health records (EHRs) and to generate knowledge with few or no training. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of LLMs for clinical decision support, specifically in the context of emergency department triage, where the volume of textual data is minimal compared to other scenarios such as making a clinical diagnosis.

methodsWe benchmark LLMs with traditional machine learning (ML) approaches using the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) as the gold standard criteria of triage. The benchmark includes general purpose, specialised, and fine-tuned LLMs. All models are prompted to predict ESI score from a EHRs. We use a balanced subset (n = 1000) from MIMIC-IV-ED, a large database containing records of admissions to the emergency department of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

resultsOur findings show that the best-performing models have an average F1-score below 0.60. Also, while zero-shot and fine-tuned LLMs can outperform standard ML models, their performance is surpassed by ML models augmented with features derived from LLMs or knowledge graphs.

conclusionLLMs show value for clinical decision support in scenarios with limited textual data, such as emergency department triage. The study advocates for integrating LLM knowledge representation to improve existing ML models rather than using LLMs in isolation, suggesting this as a more promising approach to enhance the accuracy of automated triage systems.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingTriageHumansLarge Language ModelsLarge language modelMachine learningMIMICTriage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.