ArticleAsia Pacific allergy2025
Artificial intelligence for detecting anaphylaxis in electronic medical records.
Article in Asia Pacific allergy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite established criteria, diagnosing anaphylaxis remains challenging but critical for preventing future reactions. Fast-paced clinical settings, compounded by underrecording in electronic medical records (EMRs), increase the risk of dangerous re-exposures. Leveraging artificial intelligence through automated systems such as large language models (LLMs) offers a solution. Objective: This study aims to assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence, specifically LLMs, in autonomously identifying anaphylaxis diagnoses from EMR text to enhance patient safety and optimize care delivery. Methods: LLMs (GPT 3.5, 4, and 4 Turbo) analyzed 969 medical texts in Brazilian Portuguese, annotated as anaphylaxis-positive (48) or negative (921) by 3 expert physicians. A primary prompt simulated a general practitioner's role in reviewing medical narratives for anaphylaxis detection, with a secondary prompt incorporating World Allergy Organization (WAO) criteria. The experiments were conducted using 3 GPT configurations. The diagnostic suggestions of the LLM were compared to the physicians' diagnoses. Precision, sensitivity (recall), specificity, and accuracy values were calculated. Results: Using the primary prompt, GPT 4 Turbo detected anaphylaxis cases with 90.6% precision, 100% sensitivity, 99.5% specificity, 99.5% accuracy, and a Cohen kappa coefficient of 0.95. The inclusion of WAO criteria slightly improved the performance of older models (GPT 3.5 + 4 configuration). However, for GPT 4 Turbo, additional information did not enhance precision. Conclusion: The results highlight the potential of artificial intelligence, particularly LLMs, to automate anaphylaxis diagnosis, support healthcare professionals, and improve patient safety and care.
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.