Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42853295›Full record

ArticleRheumatology international2026

Automating the triage of rheumatology outpatient referrals: a comparative evaluation of 23 large language models under simple and advanced prompting.

Lynden Roberts

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lynden RobertsFaculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. lynden.roberts@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2960-1075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Triage of rheumatology outpatient referrals is a high-volume administrative task that consumes senior specialist time without advancing patient care. The human triage system is only moderately accurate and reproducible. We assessed whether contemporary large language models (LLMs) are able to perform well enough to support automating this task in practice. In addition, the effects of different prompting techniques on triage accuracy and cost was assessed to help identify the optimal approach. Twenty referral scenarios spanning the urgency spectrum were created by a certified Australian rheumatologist. Four rheumatologists triaged all cases independently and blinded to produce a consensus reference standard; inter-rater reliability was quantified. Twenty-three LLMs each triaged every referral into one of five urgency categories, three times (1380 outputs per referral). The experiment was run with a simple prompt and repeated with an advanced prompt supplying explicit triage expectations and worked examples. In line with published literature, agreement among the four rheumatologists was moderate (Fleiss kappa 0.60; mean pairwise linear-weighted kappa 0.79), with all four assigning categories within one level of each other in 90% of cases. All 2760 model calls returned an interpretable result. Under the simple prompt, performance separated into distinct tiers, larger models were more accurate (Spearman rho = 0.42; P=.047) and accuracy tracked cost. Advanced prompting reduced between-model variance in accuracy 5.3-fold (0.014 to 0.003; Levene P=.01), abolished the size-accuracy association (rho=-0.05; P=.83) and removed the accuracy-cost relationship. The best models matched expert consensus on 18 of 20 cases, comparable to the reproducibility observed among the rheumatologists themselves. Under-triage errors persisted with some LLMs. Contemporary LLMs categorised rheumatology referral urgency with an accuracy and reproducibility comparable to that reported for human triage systems, although human triage was not tested in this study. Advanced prompting appeared to substitute for the reasoning capability of larger models, suggesting that adequate performance on this task may not require the most expensive models. These findings indicate that automation of this administrative task is technically feasible. Candidate models that warrant prospective evaluation are identified.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsReferral and ConsultationRheumatic DiseasesRheumatologyTriageHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRheumatologistsArtificial intelligenceHealth services researchNatural language processingReferral and consultationRheumatologyTriage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.