ArticleThe Veterinary record2026
Assessing the performance of large language models when used to determine ASA status of cats and dogs and generate anaesthetic protocols.
Article in The Veterinary record, 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
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are emerging as decision-support tools in human medicine; however, their evaluation in veterinary anaesthesiology remains limited.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 225 anonymised feline and canine cases (American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] classifications 1‒5) from Atatürk University Veterinary Hospital. ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro independently assigned ASA classifications and generated anaesthetic protocols using standardised prompts. Protocol adequacy was evaluated for all cases, regardless of ASA classification agreement, by two experienced veterinary anaesthesiologists using a four-point scale. Statistical analyses included Friedman and Bonferroni-adjusted Wilcoxon tests, effect sizes and inter-panelist reliability (assessed by quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient).
resultsChatGPT-5 achieved the highest ASA classification accuracy (53.3%), followed by ChatGPT-4o (46.7%) and Gemini 2.5 Pro (30.7%). The performance was strongest for ASA 3‒5, whereas ASA 1 cases were frequently misclassified, mainly due to ASA overestimation. ChatGPT-5 generated the most clinically sufficient anaesthetic protocols, outperforming the other models. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective, single-centre design and inclusion of only feline and canine cases may limit generalisability.
conclusionsLLMs can generate clinically relevant ASA classifications and anaesthetic protocols in veterinary anaesthesiology, although performance varies across models. However, expert oversight remains essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42117364What 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.