ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Feasibility and challenges of large language model (LLM)-generated neonatal resuscitation simulations: a multicenter exploratory study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based training (SBT) in neonatal resuscitation has positive impact on educational and neonatal outcomes. However, the implementation of well-designed SBT imposes multifaceted demands on instructors. Large language models (LLMs) might have potential in dynamically generating contextual resuscitation scenarios. But gaps exist regarding the feasibility and challenges of LLM-generated simulation scenarios in neonatal resuscitation.
methodsThis is a prospective, multicenter pilot study evaluating the feasibility and challenges of LLM-generated simulation scenarios. Four scenarios including extremely premature infant, placental abruption, born before arrival in hospital and meconium-stained amniotic fluid were generated by ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1. Four equivalent scenarios were extracted from Neonatal Resuscitation Program® (NRP®) and RETAIN (a serious game platform). Totally these 16 scenarios were written on standardized templates, coded and randomized. Nine independent instructors from 5 centers, who were blinded to the source of the scenarios (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, NRP® and RETAIN), evaluated the performance of scenarios using modified Jeffries Simulation Design Scale (JSDS). AI hallucination and qualitative evaluation were also compared among four groups.
resultsWhen compared with NRP® scenarios, ChatGPT-generated scenarios demonstrated comparable median scores without statistically significant difference in overall evaluation, whereas DeepSeek and RETAIN had lower scores in overall evaluation, problem-solving efficacy and scenario fidelity. DeepSeek exhibited inferior performance in providing appropriate information. In debriefing design, ChatGPT achieved higher scores than NRP® (effect size r = 0.25, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in AI hallucination between the two LLMs. ChatGPT demonstrated strengths in establishing clear objectives and providing structured debriefing frameworks but exhibited deficiencies in the consistent provision of dynamic vital signs. DeepSeek manifested violations in NRP® algorithm.
conclusionsChatGPT-generated simulation scenarios might be feasible in facilitating SBT when supervised by NRP® instructors. NRP® deviations and gaps remain in LLM-generated scenarios, which necessitate objective evaluation prior to implementation. Further research assessing educational outcomes and feedback from target learners are essential for the appropriate integration of LLM-generated simulation into SBT. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.