ArticleNature medicine2026
Prospective evaluation of a large language model clinical decision support system in the emergency department.
Article in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06902675 (Artificial Intelligence as a Decision Making Tool in Emergency Medicine), which is not on this 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.
Artificial Intelligence as a Decision Making Tool in Emergency Medicine
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prospective evidence for artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support in emergency departments remains limited. Here we conducted a DECIDE-AI stage 1 evaluation of SHAKED, a clinical decision support system built on multiple large language models, in a tertiary emergency department. Over 4 weeks, 1,138 patients were analyzed across two parallel units-one using SHAKED and one following routine rotations. Clinical adoption of SHAKED declined from 68% to 30%, owing to workload-sensitive disengagement (OR = 0.72 per shift hour, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83). Physicians preferred the use of SHAKED for radiology consultations (OR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.63). No adverse events were detected, and expert review rated 99 of 100 sampled outputs as clinically appropriate. Emergency department length of stay did not differ between wings (4.9 h in both, P = 0.99). Intention-to-treat analysis showed a non-significant trend toward shorter consultation cycle time (-9.4 min, P = 0.077). These findings suggest that sustained clinician engagement, rather than algorithmic accuracy, may be the key barrier to effective clinical AI use in emergency departments. They inform randomized trial design but do not justify clinical deployment of AI clinical decision support at this stage. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06902675 .
Identifiers
42618632What 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.