ArticleRheumatology international2026
Automating the triage of rheumatology outpatient referrals: a comparative evaluation of 23 large language models under simple and advanced prompting.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42853295What 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.