Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41852493›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026

Quality assessment of large language model-generated prior authorization letters in nephrology.

Noppawit Aiumtrakul, Charat Thongprayoon, Chutawat Kookanok, Methavee Poochanasri, Kitinan Phichedwanichskul, Wisit Cheungpasitporn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Noppawit AiumtrakulDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Charat ThongprayoonDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Chutawat KookanokDepartment of Medicine, One Brooklyn Health, Interfaith Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States.
Methavee PoochanasriDepartment of Medicine, Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kitinan PhichedwanichskulPhramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wisit CheungpasitpornDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prior authorization (PA) is a major source of administrative burden, treatment delay, and clinician burnout. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is increasingly used to assist with clinical documentation, yet its reliability for payer-facing administrative tasks remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the quality of PA letters drafted by ChatGPT-5 for commonly used medications requiring PA in nephrology. Quality was evaluated based on correctness and strength of clinical reasoning. Methods: We created a single standardized prompt and applied it across 29 nephrology scenarios to generate PA letters. Each PA letter was reviewed against four criteria: 1) absence of false statements or hallucinations, 2) correctness of ICD-10 coding, 3) presence and validity of citations, and 4) clinical reasoning, rated on a 4-point Likert scale (illogical, weak, adequate and strong). FDA drug labels, KDIGO guidelines and related randomized controlled trials were used as reference standards. Results: Out of 29 letters, one letter (3.5%) contained false statements mentioning an irrelevant clinical trial. The ICD-10 diagnosis code was correct in 23 letters (79.3%), most errors were related to chronic kidney disease (CKD) staging or internal diagnostic inconsistencies. 27 letters (93.1%) cited valid references, with one letter citing an incorrect trial and another one citing a correct KDIGO guideline with inaccessible link. Twenty-six letters (89.7%) demonstrated strong clinical reasoning, supported by guideline-oriented or FDA label-aligned justification. The remaining 3 letters were rated as adequate reasoning. The main areas for improvement involved citing relevant references and emphasizing special considerations, for example Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) compliance for eculizumab. Conclusions: ChatGPT-5 can generate clinically coherent PA drafts for nephrology medications, but limitations in coding precision and citation reliability persist. With appropriate oversight, AI-assisted documentation may reduce administrative burden while maintaining safety and accuracy.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPT-5large language modelsnephrologyprior authorization

Identifiers

PMID41852493
PMCPMC12992280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.