ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Preparing for Pandemics with Large Language Models: An Evaluation of Sensitivity Across COVID-19, Zika, and Monkeypox Case Reports.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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) have emerged as potential tools for early disease characterization and pandemic preparedness due to their ability to interpret complex textual data. This study evaluated the sensitivity of three LLMs: GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro on early case reports of COVID-19, Mpox, and Zika. Each case report was modified to remove explicit diagnostic terms, and models were prompted to identify whether the presentation represented a disease of pandemic potential. Claude Sonnet 4 achieved the highest sensitivity overall across all three diseases. GPT-5 demonstrated inconsistent results, performing poorly on Mpox. Findings highlight significant variability in diagnostic reliability across LLMs, emphasizing the need for multimodal integration, dataset refinement, and ethical oversight. Limitations include the small sample size, retrospective English-language case reports, text-only inputs, and evaluation of known diseases. Clinical Trial Number. Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41896422What 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.