ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparative analysis of six large language models in perioperative decision support for geriatric patients with multimorbidity: a three-dimensional evaluation framework.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundWhile large language models (LLMs) show promise in healthcare, their reliability in high-stakes perioperative management for elderly patients with multimorbidity remains critically underexplored.
methodsThis benchmarking study evaluated five general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Claude, Kimi) and one domain-optimized model (New Youth Anesthesia Artificial Intelligence Assistant, NYAAI) using a novel three-dimensional framework assessing guideline compliance, clinical applicability, and safety redundancy. A simulated case of an 84-year-old male with femoral fracture and multimorbidity was developed. Two blinded anesthesiologists scored anonymized outputs via a 5-point Likert scale. Additionally, to account for the rapid evolution of AI models, a supplementary analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness and sensitivity of current model versions.
resultsNYAAI achieved the highest total score (12/15), excelling in clinical applicability (5/5) through domain-optimized parameterization. However, it exhibited selective guideline adherence, omitting temperature management and delirium protocols. General-purpose models demonstrated moderate guideline compliance (ChatGPT:4/5; Gemini:3/5) but generated contextually inappropriate recommendations. Safety redundancy emerged as a universal failure—no model addressed extreme-event protocols (aortic rupture management).
conclusionThis study evaluated six LLMs for perioperative decision support in a geriatric patient with multimorbidity. The findings confirm that LLMs are useful as structured protocol generators, but they are not sufficient as autonomous clinical agents. Domain-optimized models enhance operational feasibility, yet they heighten the tension between safety redundancy and contextual adaptability. General-purpose models, despite their broad knowledge, are prone to generating inaccurate or hallucinations. To maximize efficiency without jeopardizing medical safety, LLMs should be positioned as as extensions of expert systems rather than independent decision-makers.
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.