ArticleJA clinical reports2026
Evaluation of the reliability of large language models for ASA-PS classification in cardiovascular surgery: a pilot study.
Article in JA clinical reports, 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance for ASA Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification, but prior work suggests reduced agreement in high-risk patients. We evaluated LLM reliability for ASA-PS classification in cardiovascular surgery.
resultsThirty-two anonymized cases were rated by two residents, two board-certified cardiovascular anesthesiologists, and four LLM modes (ChatGPT: GPT-5.2 Instant and GPT-5.2 Thinking; Gemini: Gemini 3 Fast and Gemini 3 High Thinking); all LLM assessments were zero-shot. Overall agreement across evaluators was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.49–0.52); agreement between each LLM and specialists was good (ICC 0.61–0.65). Exact-match to a five-specialist consensus was 42.2% for residents versus 59.4–75.0% for LLMs; classifications outside the range of ratings assigned by individual specialists were rare (0–3.1%).
conclusionsIn cardiovascular surgery, contemporary LLMs showed good concordance with cardiovascular anesthesiologists and exceeded resident agreement with expert consensus, supporting prospective multicenter validation as adjuncts for ASA-PS assessment and training.
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.