ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Don't stop the heart: a performance analysis of large language models and potassium dosing.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Electrolyte replacement is ubiquitous in the acute care setting, but its familiarity cannot belie that even small dosing errors with potassium can cause lethal cardiac arrhythmias. Recently, MedAgentBench offered a benchmark for agentic artificial intelligence (AI) including the ability to correctly dose potassium based on a single rule; however, this does not adequately reflect the clinical complexity or safety concerns of an agent that has been used as the lethal injection. The purpose of this analysis was to a probe leaderboard large language model (LLM) capabilities to follow basic dosing rules to safely replace potassium in a series of clinician-annotated cases. Methods: Using a clinician panel, we developed a series of dosing principles and 20 clinical cases reflective of the complexity of potassium replacement. External clinicians were surveyed to assess practice variability and agreement to clinician panel answers. We tested GPT-5-chat with each case in triplicate, with and without the clinician curated dosing principles, and prompted the model to answer six questions involving potassium goals, dosing, route, lab frequency, concurrent interventions, and the model's perceived level of confidence for the output and complexity of the case. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate recommendations in comparison to clinician answers. Results: A total of 54 clinicians reviewed the 20 hypokalemia cases and hypokalemia dosing guideline. Clinicians expressed "highly agree" or "somewhat agree" for 66.8% of the cases evaluated when asked if they agree with the guideline-recommended management. When given the potassium dosing guideline, total errors dropped from 165 to 104, and average accuracy improved from 45% to 65% with GPT-5-Chat. GPT-5-Chat conveyed a high level of confidence for 100% of responses, while labeling 80% and 76% of cases as highly complex with and without the criteria, respectively. Potential harm scores were considerable in both groups, however, a notable reduction in severity scores occurred with the dosing guidance document. Recommendations on concurrent interventions and dosing had the highest rate of errors in both groups. Conclusions: Benchmarks must appropriately reflect clinical complexity to be considered valuable for the deployment of agentic artificial intelligence tools in the healthcare domain. GPT-5-Chat assessment on a comprehensive medication management task for potassium replacement showed improvement with dosing guidance, yet unfit benchmarking performance.
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.