ArticleJAMIA open2025
Grounded large language models for diagnostic prediction in real-world emergency department settings.
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.
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.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Large Language Models Against a Blinded Specialist Consensus Standard in Turkish Emergency Department Notes: A Retrospective Study of 600 Cases
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From nonagentic large language models to multiagent systems in emergency medicine: a scoping review.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Critical Care-Specific vs General-Purpose Large Language Models in Emergency Intensive Care Unit Diagnosis: Single-Center Retrospective Paired Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Large language models in emergency and critical care medicine: a comprehensive review of applications, challenges, and future directions.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.