ArticleJAMA network open2026
An Electronic Health Record-Integrated, Large Language Model-Powered Tool to Triage Surgical Patients.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Surgical comanagement (SCM) is an evidence-based care model in which hospitalists jointly manage medically complex perioperative patients alongside surgical teams. Despite its clinical and financial value, effective use of SCM is limited by the need to manually identify eligible patients; large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prevalent in clinical workflows and could be useful in selecting patients for SCM. Objective: To assess whether SCM eligibility triage can be automated. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, unblinded quality improvement study was conducted at Stanford Health Care from September 2025 to February 2026. An LLM-based, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated, human-in-the-loop surgical triage tool (SCM Navigator) provided SCM triage recommendations, followed by physician review. All SCM attending physicians were invited to participate. Exposure: Using preoperative documentation, structured data, and clinical criteria for perioperative morbidity, the tool categorized patients as appropriate, not appropriate, or possibly appropriate for SCM. SCM faculty indicated clinical judgment of SCM appropriateness and provided free-text feedback when they disagreed with the tool. Main Outcomes and Measures: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the tool were measured using physician feedback as a reference. Free-text reasons were thematically categorized. Manual medical record review was conducted on all false-negative cases. For the largest false-positive category, manual medical record reviews were conducted on 15 randomly selected cases subsequently seen by SCM and 15 randomly selected cases not seen by SCM. Results: Overall, 14 of 16 SCM attending physicians participated in the study. Among 6193 triaged surgical cases (median [IQR] age, 60.2 [41.6-71.3] years; 3036 [49.0% female]), 1582 (25.5%) were recommended for hospitalist consultation. Using treating physicians' determinations as the reference standard, the tool had high sensitivity (0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96) and moderate specificity (0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.77) for identifying patients appropriate for SCM. Post hoc medical record review suggested that most discrepancies reflected modifiable gaps in clinical criteria, institutional workflow, or physician practice variability rather than LLM misclassification, which accounted for 2 of 19 false-negative cases (11%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective quality improvement study of an LLM-powered, EHR-integrated, human-in-the-loop AI system, AI-enabled screening tools accurately augmented surgical patient triage.
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.