The Role of Large Language Models in Transforming Emergency Medicine: Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI), more specifically large language models (LLMs), holds significant potential in revolutionizing emergency care delivery by optimizing clinical workflows and enhancing the quality of decision-making. Although enthusiasm for integrating LLMs into emergency medicine (EM) is growing, the existing literature is characterized by a disparate collection of individual studies, conceptual analyses, and preliminary implementations. Given these complexities and gaps in understanding, a cohesive framework is needed to comprehend the existing body of knowledge on the application of LLMs in EM. OBJECTIVE: Given the absence of a comprehensive framework for exploring the roles of LLMs in EM, this scoping review aims to systematically map the existing literature on LLMs' potential applications within EM and identify directions for future research. Addressing this gap will allow for informed advancements in the field. METHODS: Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) criteria, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2018 and August 2023 that discussed LLMs' use in EM. We excluded other forms of AI. A total of 1994 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and each full-text paper was independently reviewed by 2 authors. Data were abstracted independently, and 5 authors performed a collaborative quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the data. RESULTS: A total of 43 papers were included. Studies were predominantly from 2022 to 2023 and conducted in the United States and China. We uncovered four major themes: (1) clinical decision-making and support was highlighted as a pivotal area, with LLMs playing a substantial role in enhancing patient care, notably through their application in real-time triage, allowing early recognition of patient urgency; (2) efficiency, workflow, and information management demonstrated the capacity of LLMs to significantly boost operational efficiency, particularly through the automation of patient record synthesis, which could reduce administrative burden and enhance patient-centric care; (3) risks, ethics, and transparency were identified as areas of concern, especially regarding the reliability of LLMs' outputs, and specific studies highlighted the challenges of ensuring unbiased decision-making amidst potentially flawed training data sets, stressing the importance of thorough validation and ethical oversight; and (4) education and communication possibilities included LLMs' capacity to enrich medical training, such as through using simulated patient interactions that enhance communication skills. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs have the potential to fundamentally transform EM, enhancing clinical decision-making, optimizing workflows, and improving patient outcomes. This review sets the stage for future advancements by identifying key research areas: prospective validation of LLM applications, establishing standards for responsible use, understanding provider and patient perceptions, and improving physicians' AI literacy. Effective integration of LLMs into EM will require collaborative efforts and thorough evaluation to ensure these technologies can be safely and effectively applied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it