ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
ChatGPT-4o in delirium recognition: a pilot study.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
objectiveDelirium is common yet frequently under-recognized in older adults and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Large language models may support clinical reasoning, but their performance and consistency in complex geriatric syndromes remain unclear.
methodsWe analyzed 20 PubMed-indexed geriatric case reports converted into structured vignettes with explicit references to delirium removed. ChatGPT-4o was tested in three conditions (two independent sessions and one consecutive-session run) to assess delirium identification and temporal consistency; DeepSeek-V2 served as a comparator. Two clinicians (geriatrician and neurologist) independently rated outputs for clinical plausibility, concordance with the reference diagnosis, and decision-support value.
resultsChatGPT-4o identified delirium in 70% of cases in both independent sessions and 90% in the consecutive-session run, whereas DeepSeek-V2 identified 50%. Differences across ChatGPT-4o conditions were not significant (p=0.135). Agreement between independent ChatGPT-4o sessions was substantial (κ=0.76), while agreement involving the consecutive-session run was low, suggesting contextual priming. Expert ratings were higher in successfully identified cases across domains (all p<0.05). Inter-rater reliability was highest for concordance (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient=0.86).
conclusionChatGPT-4o showed promising but context-sensitive delirium recognition in geriatric vignettes. Large language models may serve as vigilance-enhancing decision-support tools under expert supervision, pending prospective validation.
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.