ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Independent and collaborative performance of large language models and healthcare professionals in diagnosis and triage.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Facing AI System for Symptom Guidance Using Simulated Encounters and Physician Review: Analytical Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A roadmap for medical large language models: a review of foundations, applications, and challenges.Military Medical Research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) show promising diagnostic and triage performance, yet direct comparisons with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and collaborative effects remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (January 2020 to September 2025) comparing the diagnostic or triage accuracy of LLMs, HCPs, or their collaboration across seven databases. Studies using multiple-choice formats rather than open diagnostic generation were excluded. We extracted top-1, top-3, top-5, and top-10 diagnostic and triage accuracies and pooled results using multilevel random-effects models to account for nested observations. Of 10,398 studies screened, 50 met criteria, evaluating 25 different LLMs across diverse medical specialties. The relative diagnostic accuracy of LLMs versus HCPs progressively improved from 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00) for top-1 to 0.91 (0.83-1.00) for top-3, 1.04 (0.89-1.22) for top-5, and 1.17 (0.87-1.57) for top-10 diagnoses, with significant model variability. LLM-assisted HCPs outperformed HCPs alone, with relative diagnostic accuracy of 1.13 (1.00-1.27) for top-1, 1.11 (1.01-1.23) for top-3, 1.42 (1.16-1.73) for top-5, and 1.33 (0.94-1.87) for top-10 diagnoses. Triage accuracy was similar between LLMs and HCPs (1.01 [0.94-1.09]). These findings show potential for LLM integration but methodological flaws in studies necessitate rigorous real-world evaluation before clinical implementation.
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.