Articlenpj health systems2026
Assessing acuity in pediatric emergency department triage: performance of a large language model.
Article in npj health systems, 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
Abstract
Pediatric triage performance varies across emergency departments (ED), contributing to ongoing challenges in pediatric emergency care. There is growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to support more consistent triage decision-making in children. We evaluated an LLM's (GPT-5-mini) ability to identify the higher-acuity child from pairs of de-identified clinical notes. Across 228,104 pediatric ED visits, the LLM achieved an overall accuracy of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.73-0.74) in identifying the higher-acuity child, with accuracy improving as acuity differences between visits increased. The LLM was less likely to be correct when the higher-acuity child was older (odds ratio, 0.62, 95% CI, 0.61-0.63) and when the age difference between children was large (0.75, 95% CI, 0.70-0.79). The LLM showed moderate overall accuracy in assessing pediatric acuity and demonstrated a tendency to prioritize younger children, similar to human performance. These findings highlight the need for pediatric-specific LLM evaluation and optimization before clinical use.
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.