ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2026
From Promising Capabilities to Pervasive Bias: Assessing Large Language Models for Emergency Department Triage.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant promise for clinical applications, yet their application to triage remains underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate the capabilities of LLMs in emergency department triage through two key dimensions: (1) robustness to distribution shifts and missing data, and (2) intersectional biases across sex and race. We assess multiple LLM-based approaches, ranging from continued pre-training to in-context learning, as well as conventional machine learning (ML) approaches. First, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit superior robustness compared to traditional ML, which is promising due to their ability to provide explanatory rationales. Second, we show that the most effective LLM-based methods are those that select similar examples from prior patient cases, whereas reasoning capabilities in LLMs offer little benefit for triage. Lastly, we identify critical gaps in LLM preferences that emerge at the intersections of sex and race. LLMs exhibit sex-based differences, and they are more pronounced in certain racial groups, suggesting that LLMs encode preferences that emerge in specific clinical contexts and combinations of characteristics. We perform this audit through counterfactual analysis, providing a systematic way to identify such biases before real-world integration.
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.