SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2026
Diagnostic accuracy of large language models for emergency department triage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLarge language models (LLMs) have shown potential in the field of emergency department (ED) triage. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their diagnostic performance and a comparison with triage nurses have not been extensively explored. To systematically evaluate the comparative triage accuracy of LLMs versus triage nurses in ED, assess their performance in identifying patients assigned to the highest-acuity triage category by the reference standard.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2025. Two researchers independently screened and evaluated the quality of the selected studies and conducted meta-analyses using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 16.0.
resultsA total of 11 studies were included, involving 3088 real or simulated ED cases. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for LLM triage accuracy was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.32-1.34; I² = 97%). For identifying patients assigned to the highest-acuity triage category by the reference standard, LLMs demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 61% (95% CI: 48%-73%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI: 88%-99%), with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The pooled area under the curve (AUC) was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85). These estimates reflect concordance with triage category by the reference standard rather than discrimination of outcome-anchored physiological acuity. No significant publication bias was detected by Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test.
conclusionCurrent LLMs demonstrate moderate discriminatory performance for identifying patients assigned to the highest-acuity triage category by the reference standard, but have limited sensitivity for these cases. LLMs may have potential as adjunctive support tools, but further prospective evaluation with patient-centered and safety-critical outcomes is required before implementation can be considered.
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.