ArticleThoracic research and practice2026
AI in Patient Care: Evaluating Large Language Model Performance Against Evidence-Based Guidelines for Pulmonary Embolism.
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Free Large Language Model-based Chatbots Can Help to Align Statistical Tests with the Study Design and Avoid Pseudo-replication.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Reply Letter to the Editor: Free Large Language Model-based Chatbots Can Help to Align Statistical Tests with the Study Design and Avoid Pseudo-replication.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2026
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI)-driven large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in patient education; however, their ability to interpret and apply clinical guidelines within real-world physician workflows remains uncertain. Pulmonary embolism (PE), with its well-established diagnostic and management protocols, provides a suitable model for evaluating these systems. This study assessed the performance of four widely used AI-driven LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V2, Gemini, and Grok-in applying the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for PE. The focus was on evaluating clinical accuracy, adherence to guidelines, and response consistency. MATERIAL AND
methodsTen open-ended questions based on a simulated PE case were created, covering diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment, and follow-up. Guideline-based reference answers were used for scoring. LLMs were tested under identical conditions, and the responses were anonymized and scored by two emergency physicians using a 10-point scale. Inter-rater reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and group comparisons were made using Kruskal-Wallis tests.
resultsChatGPT-4o scored highest (76), followed by Gemini (73.75), Grok (71.25), and DeepSeek-V2 (65). No significant difference was found in total scores (
conclusionAI-driven LLMs show promise in supporting PE management, though none consistently excel in all domains. Further development is needed to enhance clinical integration and guideline compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.