ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Evaluation of large language models in emergency medicine scenarios: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o3mini, Gemini 2.0-pro, and DeepSeek-R1.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application of large language models (LLMs) in emergency medicine has gained increasing interest, yet their performance across complex clinical domains remains underexplored.
methodsThis study evaluated the performance of four LLMs—ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o3mini, Gemini 2.0-Pro, and DeepSeek-R1—using 11 representative emergency simulation cases encompassing six core domains: triage, assessment and diagnosis, treatment decision-making, post-treatment management and follow-up, psychosocial support, and prognosis and rehabilitation. The responses generated by each model to domain-specific clinical queries were independently evaluated by a panel of 20 emergency physicians, all with more than eight years of clinical experience. Evaluations were based on response quality, relevance, and applicability. Misleading or inappropriate outputs were re-prompted to assess the models’ self-correction capabilities.
resultsAll models demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.60), with an overall ICC of 0.897 indicating high consistency. ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.0-Pro outperformed the others in overall quality and relevance. Notably, Gemini 2.0-Pro achieved the highest relevance and applicability scores in the psychosocial support domain (P < 0.001). DeepSeek-R1 also showed strong applicability in psychosocial tasks, surpassing ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-o3mini (P < 0.05). Triage emerged as the most error-prone domain across all models. Following re-prompting, ChatGPT-o3mini, Gemini 2.0-Pro, and DeepSeek-R1 showed significant improvements in applicability, particularly in triage, psychosocial support, and follow-up management.
conclusionsThese findings underscore the potential of LLMs—particularly ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.0-Pro—in enhancing emergency decision-making. However, the variability in task-specific performance underscores the need for further domain-specific refinement before clinical implementation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.