Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41127256›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Grounded large language models for diagnostic prediction in real-world emergency department settings.

Alexandre Niset, Ines Melot, Margaux Pireau, Alexandre Englebert, Nathan Scius, Julien Flament, Salim El Hadwe, Mejdeddine Al Barajraji, Henri Thonon, Sami Barrit

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07632859 (Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Large Language Models Against a Blinded Specialist Consensus Standard in Turkish Emergency Department Notes), which is not on this 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.

NCT07632859 completednot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Large Language Models Against a Blinded Specialist Consensus Standard in Turkish Emergency Department Notes: A Retrospective Study of 600 Cases

TypeobservationalSponsorMarmara University Pendik Training and Research HospitalRan2026 to 2026Enrolled600ConditionsEmergency Medicine, Diagnostic Errors, Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Diagnosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

Alexandre NisetEmergency Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, 1200, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8341-9338
Ines MelotEmergency Department, CHU Helora-Jolimont, La Louvière, 7100, Belgium.
Margaux PireauEmergency Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, 1200, Belgium.
Alexandre EnglebertScienseNew York, NY, 10004, United States.
Nathan SciusEmergency Department, CHU UCL Namur, Yvoir, 5530, Belgium.
Julien FlamentEmergency Department, CHU UCL Namur, Yvoir, 5530, Belgium.
Salim El HadweScienseNew York, NY, 10004, United States.
Mejdeddine Al BarajrajiScienseNew York, NY, 10004, United States.
Henri ThononEmergency Department, CHU UCL Namur, Yvoir, 5530, Belgium.
Sami BarritScienseNew York, NY, 10004, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate predictive diagnostic performance of open- and closed-source large language models (LLMs) in emergency medicine, addressing the urgent need for innovative clinical decision support tools amid rising patient volumes and staffing shortages. Materials and Methods: We generated 2370 AI-driven diagnostic predictions (Top-5 diagnoses from each of 6 model pipelines per patient), using data from 79 real-world emergency department cases collected consecutively during a 24-hour peak influx period at a tertiary care center. Pipelines combined open- and closed-source embedding models (text-embedding-ada-002, MXBAI) with foundational models (GPT-4, Llama3, and Qwen2) grounded via retrieval-augmented generation using emergency medicine textbooks. Models' predictions were assessed against reference diagnoses established by expert consensus. Results: All pipelines achieved comparable diagnostic match rates (62.03%-72.15%). Diagnostic performance was significantly influenced by case characteristics: match rates were notably higher for specific versus unspecific diagnoses (85.53% vs 31.41%, Discussion: Diagnostic accuracy primarily depended on case characteristics rather than the choice of model pipeline, highlighting fundamental AI alignment challenges in clinical reasoning. Low performance in unspecific diagnoses underscores inherent complexities in clinical definitions rather than technological shortcomings alone. Conclusion: Open-source LLM pipelines provide enhanced sourcing capabilities, crucial for transparent clinical decision-making and interpretability. Further research should expand knowledge bases to include hospital guidelines and regional epidemiology, while exploring on-premises solutions to better align with privacy regulations and clinical integration.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportdiagnostic predictionemergency medicinelarge language modelsopen-source modelsretrieval-augmented generation

Identifiers

PMID41127256
PMCPMC12539180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.