ArticleTransfusion2026
Interpreting antibody identification tests with large language models: Critical role of tabular data formatting.
Article in Transfusion, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibody identification testing is essential for preventing hemolytic transfusion reactions from unexpected red cell antibodies. Although automated interpretation is desirable to improve efficiency and consistency, conventional algorithmic approaches show limited accuracy, particularly in complex cases. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential alternative; however, their performance is known to be sensitive to tabular data, which is a standard format for antigen profiles in antibody identification. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe generated 100 simulated antibody identification cases comprising single alloantibodies, dual alloantibodies, autoantibodies, and unidentifiable patterns. Seven LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, o3, GPT-5, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Gemini 2.5 Pro) were evaluated. Antigen profile tables were provided using five text-based formats (Markdown, CSV, JSON, list-based, and sentence-based serialization) and as uploaded spreadsheet files. Each model interpreted all cases 10 times per format, and accuracy was assessed overall and by antibody category.
resultsReasoning-capable LLMs significantly outperformed non-reasoning models, achieving a median accuracy of 84.5%. Among text-based formats, sentence-based serialization yielded the highest accuracy, whereas CSV performed poorest. The maximum accuracy difference between table formats reached 40.5 percentage points. GPT-5 and o3 performed comparably when antigen profiles were supplied as uploaded spreadsheet files, achieving accuracy similar to that of the sentence-based format.
conclusionsReasoning LLMs demonstrated measurable baseline capability for interpreting antibody identification results when accompanied by appropriately structured antigen profile inputs. However, performance varied markedly with data representation and case complexity, and the use of LLMs in transfusion practice should remain limited to an assistive role under specialist supervision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42572450What 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.