ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Large Language Model-Based Clinical Decision Support for Antibiotic Selection and Dose Recommendation in Hospitalized Patients With Pneumonia: Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pneumonia is a common infectious disease, and antibiotic treatment in hospitalized patients must balance efficacy, safety, and resistance risk. However, antibiotic selection and dose adjustment still rely heavily on clinician experience. Although large language models (LLMs) are promising for clinical reasoning, their direct use for antibiotic selection and dose recommendation is limited by hallucinations and weak adherence to clinical constraints. Objective: This study aimed to develop and externally validate a constrained LLM-based clinical decision support pipeline for antibiotic selection and dose recommendation in hospitalized patients with pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study using electronic health record narratives, antibiotic orders, and laboratory indicators of hepatic and renal function from 331 hospitalized patients with pneumonia from 2 hospitals in China. The development cohort included 233 patients, and the external validation cohort included 98 patients. The pipeline integrated dual-branch retrieval (similar-case vector retrieval plus guideline-based knowledge graph retrieval), clinician-defined rule constraints, and hybrid-context reasoning. DeepSeek-V3, GLM-4.6, and GPT-4o were evaluated using F1-score and Jaccard accuracy. Results: On the internal test set, the full pipeline using DeepSeek-V3 achieved the best performance, with an F1-score of 0.8110 (95% CI 0.7371-0.8762) and Jaccard accuracy of 0.7624 (95% CI 0.6810-0.8386) for antibiotic selection and an F1-score of 0.7538 (95% CI 0.6671-0.8329) and Jaccard accuracy of 0.7076 (95% CI 0.6145-0.7938) for joint antibiotic selection plus dosing recommendation. On the external validation set, performance remained high, with an F1-score of 0.8605 (95% CI 0.7891-0.9252) and Jaccard accuracy of 0.8571 (95% CI 0.7857-0.9184) for antibiotic selection, and an F1-score of 0.8503 (95% CI 0.7789-0.9150) and Jaccard accuracy of 0.8469 (95% CI 0.7755-0.9133) for antibiotic selection plus dosing recommendation. The system also provided traceable evidence and rule trigger information to support clinician review. Conclusions: A constrained, retrieval-augmented LLM pipeline improved the consistency and interpretability of antibiotic selection and dose recommendation for hospitalized patients with pneumonia and provided preliminary evidence of cross-site generalizability.
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.