Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
Performance of ChatGPT, Gemini and DeepSeek for non-critical triage support using real-world conversations in emergency department.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of multimodal large language models for the detection and characterization of bone lesions on radiographs.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence advancements for orthopaedic clinical reasoning: longitudinal assessment of newer models (ChatGPT-5, Grok-3, Gemini 2.5 Flash) compared to clinicians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- How do large language models answer ADHD-related questions? A comparative study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for orthodontic consultation in patients with periodontitis: a study of reliability, quality, and readability.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Large language models for structuring knee ultrasound reports-A comparative evaluation of DeepSeek R1, gemini 2.5 flash, and GPT-4o.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Is Artificial Intelligence Ready for Emergency Department Triage? A Retrospective Evaluation of Multiple Large Language Models in 39,375 Patients at a University Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The effectiveness of large language models in dental specialty questions: a comparative study in the field of prosthodontics.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Implementing generative artificial intelligence in precision oncology: safety, governance, and significance.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Research trends and ethical perspectives on explainable artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: a bibliometric analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- AI at the Sella Turcica: Multi-Model Large Language Model Evaluation in Pituitary Adenomas.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in emergency medicine for triage and resource allocation: a scoping review.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely and accurate triage is crucial for the emergency department (ED) care. Recently, there has been growing interest in applying large language models (LLMs) to support triage decision-making. However, most existing studies have evaluated these models using simulated scenarios rather than real-world clinical cases. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of multiple commercial LLMs for non-critical triage support in ED using real-world clinical conversations.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed real-world triage conversations prospectively collected from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea. Multiple commercial LLMs-including OpenAI GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, O3, Google Gemini 2.0 flash, Gemini 2.5 flash, Gemini 2.5 pro, DeepSeek V3, and DeepSeek R1-were evaluated for the accuracy in triaging patient urgency based solely on unsummarized dialogue. The Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS) assigned by triage nurses was used as the gold standard for evaluating the LLM classifications. Model performance was assessed under both a zero-shot prompting condition and a few-shot prompting condition that included representative examples.
resultsA total of 1,057 triage cases were included in the analysis. Among the models, Gemini 2.5 flash achieved the highest accuracy (73.8%), specificity (88.9%), and PPV (94.0%). Gemini 2.5 pro demonstrated the highest sensitivity (90.9%) and F1-score (82.4%), though with lower specificity (23.3%). GPT-4.1 also showed balanced high accuracy (70.6%) and sensitivity (81.3%) with practical response times (1.79s). Performance varied widely between models and even between different versions from the same vendor. With few-shot prompting, most models showed further improvements in accuracy and F1-score.
conclusionsLLMs can accurately triage ED patient urgency using real-world clinical conversations. Several models demonstrated both high sensitivity and acceptable response times, supporting the feasibility of LLM in non-critical triage support tools in diverse clinical environments. These findings apply to non-critical patients (KTAS 3-5), and further research should address integration with objective clinical data and real-time workflow.
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.