ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Performance of large language models in neonatal resuscitation assessments versus healthcare providers: an exploratory study.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly in recent years and involved in medical education, in addition to clinical care. However, it remains unknown how the performance of LLMs in neonatal resuscitation compares to that of healthcare professionals (HCPs). In this exploratory study, we aimed to investigate and compare the performance of LLMs with those of HCPs on 3 sources of examination questions in the neonatal resuscitation training in Canada and China. Methods: In this bi-center study, we evaluated the overall accuracy, accuracy across question types, and reliability of LLMs' (ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1) responses to neonatal resuscitation questions from workshop in China, NRP® textbook (8 Results: Both LLMs performed comparably to HCPs in Chinese examinations, and showed similar accuracy in NRP® textbook questions with higher scores on multiple-choice than on short answer questions. ChatGPT achieved higher accuracy than DeepSeek and HCPs in the Kahoot quizzes. ChatGPT also had higher accuracy on scenario-based than on non-scenario-based questions in the workshop examination. High reliability of LLMs' responses was found (Fleiss' Kappa>0.89). Conclusion: Both ChatGPT and DeepSeek achieved accuracy comparable to that of HCPs and showed high consistency on selected neonatal resuscitation written examinations. The findings warrant further research to explore their potential integration in neonatal resuscitation training.
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.