ArticleScientific reports2026
Potential of large language models for rapid clinical information support: evidence from acute kidney injury knowledge testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in clinical contexts; however, to our knowledge, their performance in acute kidney injury (AKI) has not been directly compared with physician performance on standardized clinical knowledge assessments. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the performance of 13 publicly available LLMs and 123 volunteer participants at the 131st Annual Congress of the German Society of Internal Medicine in Wiesbaden, Germany. Both groups completed an identical AKI knowledge assessment consisting of two case vignettes and 15 single-best-answer multiple-choice questions. LLMs achieved a mean score of 13.5 out of 15 (90%), with several models reaching a perfect score, while human participants averaged 7.3 out of 15 (48.7%). Only 16.3% of participants scored 11 points or higher. As an illustrative example, ChatGPT-4o completed the test in approximately 0.5 minutes, whereas humans required a mean of 7.3 minutes. These findings demonstrate that LLMs substantially outperformed a heterogeneous group of medical professionals in AKI knowledge assessments and did so with markedly greater efficiency. While this highlights the potential of LLMs as rapid, cost-effective tools for clinical knowledge support, their role in real-world patient care remains undetermined, and human clinical judgment remains essential to ensure safe, context-sensitive, and patient-centered care.
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.