ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Enhancing large language model clinical support information with machine learning risk and explainability: a feasibility study.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of evaluation prompt strategies on LLM-as-a-judge reliability in critical care.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Article
- The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent machine learning (ML) prediction models offer limited guidance for individualized actionable management. Large language models (LLMs) can transform ML model-predicted risk estimates with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) into clinically meaningful support information, yet the added value of incorporating ML-derived data and the relative performance of different LLMs remain uncertain. To address these gaps, we used our previously developed IMPACT framework to evaluate the quality of LLM-generated outputs.
methodsIn this retrospective analysis of MIMIC-IV v3.1 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, we applied a previously developed XGBoost model to estimate ICU mortality risk and derive corresponding SHAP values. GPT-4o transformed the predicted mortality risk, clinical predictors, and their SHAP values into risk interpretation, recommended examinations and management. The primary analysis examined whether augmenting LLM inputs with predicted mortality risk and SHAP values improved clinical response quality, as assessed by the IMPACT framework. We further compared GPT-4o with seven contemporary LLMs; all eight models generated clinical support responses that were scored by Claude 3.7 Sonnet to assess performance differences.
resultsClaude 3.7 Sonnet showed excellent agreement with human IMPACT ratings (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.979, 95% CI 0.973-0.984) and o3-mini (ICC 0.971, 95% CI 0.964-0.980). In the primary analysis, adding predicted ICU mortality risk and SHAP values significantly increased GPT-4o IMPACT scores across prompting strategies. GPT-5 mini (96.0) and gpt-oss-120B (93.4) outperformed GPT-4o (90.4; both p < 0.001) for interpretability and quality.
conclusionsCombining ML-derived risk, SHAP explanations and LLMs may modestly improve ICU clinical support information, while LLM-based evaluators demonstrated feasibility for scalable evaluation of generated clinical content.
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.