Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726433›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024

Humans and Large Language Models in Clinical Decision Support: A Study with Medical Calculators.

Nicholas C Wan, Qiao Jin, Joey Chan, Guangzhi Xiong, Serina Applebaum, Aidan Gilson, Reid McMurry, R Andrew Taylor, Aidong Zhang, Qingyu Chen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nicholas C WanDivision of Intramural Research, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.
Qiao JinDivision of Intramural Research, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.
Joey ChanDivision of Intramural Research, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.
Guangzhi XiongDepartment of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Serina ApplebaumDepartment of Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Aidan GilsonMassachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Reid McMurryDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
R Andrew TaylorDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Aidong ZhangDepartment of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Qingyu ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics & Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Zhiyong LuDivision of Intramural Research, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using licensing exams, their ability to support clinical decision-making, such as selecting medical calculators, remains uncertain. We assessed nine LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 multiple-choice question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and compared LLMs to humans on a subset of questions. While the highest-performing LLM, OpenAI's o1, provided an answer accuracy of 66.0% (CI: 56.7-75.3%) on the subset of 100 questions, two human annotators nominally outperformed LLMs with an average answer accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). Ultimately, we evaluated medical trainees and LLMs in recommending medical calculators across clinical scenarios like risk stratification and diagnosis. With error analysis showing that the highest -performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (49.3% of errors) and calculator knowledge (7.1% of errors), our findings highlight that LLMs are not superior to humans in calculator recommendation.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalLarge Language ModelsHumans

Identifiers

PMID41726433
PMCPMC12919463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.