ArticlePLOS digital health2026
An LLM-based decision aid for collaborative decision-making in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A multimethod evaluation.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common pediatric chronic inflammatory rheumatic condition, with substantial quality-of-life impacts. Treatment selection is complex due to limited guideline evidence, and difficult trade-offs. Decisions are often solely physician driven. We evaluated the feasibility of Large Language Model-based Decision Aid (LLM-DA) designed to support collaborative rather than solely physician decision-making in JIA care. A multi-method feasibility study was conducted in accordance with the TRIPOD-LLM checklist. The aims were twofold: first, to assess the quality of the LLM-DA (OpenAI's o3 model) based on evaluations from three pediatric rheumatologists and an exploratory assessment by an LLM-as-a-Judge (OpenAI's GPT-5 model); and second, to characterize perceived value of the tool from the patient perspective through a mixed methods evaluation (n = 34). For 10 de-identified use cases, rheumatologists and LLM-Judge generated treatment recommendations and scored the LLM-DA outputs on safety, factual consistency, treatment appropriateness, and preference acknowledgment. Rheumatologists rated 97% of outputs as acceptable for safety and preference acknowledgment, 60% for factual consistency, 70% for appropriateness. Treatment recommendation agreement among all evaluators and real-world data was low at <30%. Inter-rater agreement for scores among rheumatologists was almost perfect for safety and preference acknowledgement, moderate for treatment appropriateness, and poor for factual consistency, and remained the same or improved with LLM-as-a-Judge. Variability in evaluator scoring and treatment recommendations may reflect the inherent heterogeneity in acceptable JIA treatment pathways and potential limitations in the LLM-DA's decision-making logic. Five patient themes were identified: the tool complements rheumatologist expertise, prepares patients through reflection and actionable information, builds confidence for self-advocacy, has variable value depending on the patient-physician relationship, and has potential for broader JIA self-management. These exploratory findings provide a proof-of-concept for using AI to support collaborative decision-making, while highlighting the need for future studies to determine whether LLMs can reliably support clinical practice.
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.