ArticleCJEM2026
Clinician-supervised large language AI model after-discharge instruction generation for common emergency department presentations.
Article in CJEM, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAfter-discharge instructions often fail due to poor usability and language misalignment. We evaluated a clinician-supervised method for generating instructions for common emergency department presentations using a clinician-supervised method using large language models.
methodsEight common ED presentations were identified via a physician needs assessment. After-discharge instructions were generated using three publicly accessible large language models (ChatGPT‑4.0, Claude‑3.5 Haiku, and Gemini‑2.0 Flash Thinking) and iteratively refined by expert physicians. After-discharge instructions were assessed for clinical accuracy, completeness, readability (Flesch Reading Ease scale), semantic similarity, and understandability. This analysis was repeated after the inclusion of reviewer edits. Five AI-simulated personas based on local marginalised patient profiles were used to identify comprehension barriers. We applied Bag‑of‑Words and BioClinical BERT similarity metrics to objectively quantify the semantic and contextual consistency of LLM outputs beyond what readability scores alone capture.
resultsAll large language models produced clinically accurate instructions. Physician edits improved accuracy but paradoxically reduced objective readability scores. Whilst Claude was preferred for simpler language after revisions, persona reviews revealed persistent medical jargon and vague instructions that could hinder understanding for marginalised groups.
conclusionLarge language models with expert clinician supervision can create clinically accurate after-discharge instructions. However, clinician-led refinements decreased readability, increasing the risk of poorer post-visit patient understanding. AI-simulated personas may offer a scalable method to surface potential comprehension barriers in patient instructions, but must be followed by validation with real patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455479What 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.