Articlenpj health systems2025
Technology-supported self-triage decision making.
Article in npj health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Self-Diagnosis and the Patient-Physician Relationship: Mixed Methods Study of Calibration, Participation, and Trust.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The trust in AI-generated health advice (TAIGHA) scale and short version (TAIGHA-S): Development and validation study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- MAP: evaluation and multi-agent enhancement of large language models for inpatient pathways.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Increasing Large Language Model Accuracy for Care-Seeking Advice Using Prompts Reflecting Human Reasoning Strategies in the Real World: Validation Study.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT model versions for giving care-seeking advice.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- How to Evaluate the Accuracy of Symptom Checkers and Diagnostic Decision Support Systems: Symptom Checker Accuracy Reporting Framework (SCARF).JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self-triage decisions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
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
Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used by laypeople to navigate care options. Although humans ultimately make a final decision when using these systems, previous research has typically examined the performance of humans and SAAs/LLMs separately. Thus, it is unclear how decision-making unfolds in such hybrid human-technology teams and if SAAs/LLMs can improve laypeople's decisions. To address this gap, we conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study with semi-structured interviews and a randomized controlled trial. Our interview data revealed that in human-technology teams, decision-making is influenced by factors before, during, and after interaction. Users tend to rely on technology for information gathering and analysis but remain responsible for information integration and the final decision. Based on these results, we developed a model for technology-assisted self-triage decision-making. Our quantitative results indicate that when using a high-performing SAA, laypeople's decision accuracy improved from 53.2% to 64.5% (OR = 2.52, p < 001). In contrast, decision accuracy remained unchanged when using a LLM (54.8% before vs. 54.2% after usage, p = 79). These findings highlight the importance of studying SAAs/LLMs with humans in the loop, as opposed to analyzing them in isolation.
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.