ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Real-Time Evaluation of a Large Language Model for Clinical Practice Guideline Development.
Article in Critical care explorations, 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.
- Hallucination Rate of Peer-Reviewed Citations Generated by Large Language Models in Neurocritical Care.Critical care explorations · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the capability of a large language model (LLM) for performing each of the steps of clinical practice guideline development from framing a healthcare question to creating the evidence-to-decision framework.
methodsThe LLM tool used for this study was OpenAI Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4o. This evaluation of an LLM was conducted concomitantly with development of a clinical practice guideline on neuromuscular blockade in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome for the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) handbook provided the steps of the process that served as the outline for this evaluation of GPT-4o. Each request for information posed to the LLM was performed during or soon after the same period as the respective step of the process being conducted by the guideline panel. The results follow the major sections of the GRADE process: framing the healthcare question and selecting and rating the importance of outcomes, summarizing the evidence and quality of evidence, and going from evidence to recommendations. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThe LLM demonstrated the most usefulness for the initial step of the guideline development process that involved framing the healthcare question and selecting and rating outcomes. The limitations of the LLM became most apparent during the remaining steps of the development process.
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.