ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Large language models for interpretation of health checkup results.
Article in NPJ digital 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) show strong generalization, yet their ability to interpret structured medical data remains insufficiently studied. This work evaluated four LLMs-Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, and LLaMA 3.1-70B-using comprehensive health checkup data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Multiple prompting strategies (few-shot, role-based, constraint-based, and Chain-of-Thought) were tested. Zero-shot accuracy averaged 0.69 (SD 0.06), increasing to 0.92 (0.06) with combined strategies and to 0.95 (0.07) with Chain-of-Thought. Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o achieved the highest accuracies (≥ 0.98), while LLaMA 3.1-70B showed lower but improvable performance. Item-level analysis of 10,000 cases demonstrated near-perfect accuracy (0.99-1.00) for most biochemical markers, including glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and liver enzymes. In contrast, blood pressure showed lower accuracy (0.61-0.91), with age-related decline, likely due to the complexity of multi-categorical thresholds requiring integration of systolic and diastolic values. Subgroup analyses revealed model-specific biases: sex-related biases were observed in body mass index (Claude Sonnet 4) and urine protein, serum creatinine, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (LLaMA 3.1-70B), while age-related biases were identified in blood pressure (Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin (LLaMA 3.1-70B). Overall, advanced prompting markedly improved model performance, and top-tier LLMs demonstrated robust interpretive capability, while caution is needed for variables with complex clinical semantics such as blood pressure.
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.