ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Efficacy of large language models in detecting postoperative delirium from unstructured clinical notes: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early identification of postoperative delirium (POD) remains challenging. This retrospective observational study compared the performance of large language models (LLMs), Llama-3-70B and GPT-4o, and physicians in predicting clinically significant POD, defined as either requiring antipsychotics or diagnosis of delirium by neurologists following consultation for delirium-related symptoms. The c-statistics of Llama-3-70B and GPT-4o were 0.74 and 0.76, respectively. LLMs showed higher sensitivity (Llama-3-70B, 0.900; GPT-4o, 0.868; physicians, 0.723) and lower specificity (0.463, 0.547, and 0.814, respectively) than physicians. Inter-rater agreement was almost perfect for both Llama-3-70B and GPT-4o (Fleiss' kappa = 0.852 and 0.854, respectively) but fair for physicians (0.219). Both LLMs detected clinically significant POD approximately one day earlier than physicians (Kaplan-Meier analysis, median time to diagnosis: Llama-3-70B, 34.5 h; GPT-4o, 37.5 h; physicians, 62.9 h; log-rank P < 0.001). The integration of LLMs as a complementary screening tool under physician supervision may improve the early, reproducible diagnosis of clinically significant POD.
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.