Research Article

Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies

Volume: 7 Number: 5 October 25, 2026

Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies

Abstract

Aims: Timely and accurate decision-making is essential in intensive care unit (ICU) emergencies, where delays or errors in preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment may lead to adverse outcomes. Large language model–based Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have shown promise in clinical reasoning tasks, yet their performance in high-acuity, time-sensitive ICU emergencies remains insufficiently studied. Methods: This simulation-based observational study evaluated the performance of three large language model–based AI systems (Gemini, DeepSeek, and ChatGPT) in preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making across 84 simulated ICU emergency scenarios. Scenarios reflected real-world ICU practice and covered bleeding, cardiac, electrolyte imbalance, neurologic, respiratory, and other critical conditions. Each scenario included two multiple-choice questions (diagnosis and treatment). Responses from AI models were compared with the expert-derived reference standards established by two boardcertified anesthesiology specialists, with adjudication by a third expert in cases of disagreement. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, macro-averaged sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Subgroup analyses were performed by emergency type. The study was designed and reported in accordance with the TRIPOD-LLM statement. Results: Overall diagnostic accuracy was 0.93 for Gemini, 0.92 for DeepSeek, and 0.65 for ChatGPT. Treatment decision accuracy was 0.98 for Gemini, 0.95 for DeepSeek, and 0.68 for ChatGPT. Agreement with the expert-derived reference standard was substantial for Gemini (κ=0.743 for diagnosis; κ=0.741 for treatment), substantial for DeepSeek diagnosis (κ=0.710) and moderate for DeepSeek treatment (κ=0.584), but low for ChatGPT (κ=0.144 and κ=0.085, respectively). Gemini and DeepSeek demonstrated consistently high subgroup accuracy across all emergency categories, including perfect performance in respiratory emergencies, whereas ChatGPT showed greater variability and lower accuracy across subgroups. Conclusion: In simulated ICU emergency scenarios, Gemini and DeepSeek demonstrated high diagnostic and treatment decision accuracy, although agreement with the expert-derived reference standard varied by model and task, whereas ChatGPT showed lower and more variable performance. These findings suggest that selected large language models may have potential as decision-support tools in critical care settings; however, performance varies markedly between models. Further validation using real-world clinical data is required before clinical implementation.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

None. The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

Project Number

None

Ethical Statement

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Erzurum Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences (Date: July 10, 2025; Meeting No: 08; Decision No: 2025/225). Because the study was designed using computer-based simulated clinical scenarios, no written or verbal informed consent was required from patients.

References

  1. Dost B, Turan Eİ, Aydın ME, et al. Artificial Intelligence in anaesthesiology: current applications, challenges, and future directions. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2025;53(6):282-292. doi:10.4274/TJAR.2025.252320
  2. Turan Eİ, Baydemir AE, Özcan FG, Şahin AS. Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 in predicting ASA scores: a prospective multicentric study ChatGPT-4 in ASA score prediction. J Clin Anesth. 2024;96:111475. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111475
  3. Turan Eİ, Baydemir AE, Balıtatlı AB, Şahin AS. Assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT in interpreting blood gas analysis results ChatGPT-4 in blood gas analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2025;102:111787. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111787
  4. Abad-Gurumeta A, Gómez-Ríos MÁ. Artificial Intelligence in anesthesiology and critical care: transformative potential and unresolved ethical challenges. Not all that glitters is gold. Minerva Anestesiol. 2025;91(4):254-256. doi:10.23736/S0375-9393.25.18911-6
  5. Abdel Malek M, van Velzen M, Dahan A, et al. Generation of preoperative anaesthetic plans by ChatGPT-4.0: a mixed-method study. Br J Anaesth. 2025;134(5):1333-1340. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.038
  6. Ismaiel N, Nguyen TP, Guo N, Carvalho B, Sultan P; study collaborators. The evaluation of the performance of ChatGPT in the management of labor analgesia. J Clin Anesth. 2024;98:111582. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111582
  7. Ruan Q, Shi J, Dai Y, Yang P, Zhu N, Wang S. Performance of large language models in complex anesthesia decision-making: a comparative study of four LLMs in high-risk patients. J Med Syst. 2025;49(1):122. doi:10.1007/s10916-025-02247-3
  8. Guerrier G, Cargeac A, Courtois F, et al. Effectiveness of artificial intelligence as a support tool in preoperative anaesthesia assessments for cataract surgery: a step towards enhancing patient management. Br J Anaesth. 2025;135(5):1383-1385. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2025.08.013

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Intensive Care

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

October 25, 2026

Submission Date

July 8, 2026

Acceptance Date

September 1, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 7 Number: 5

APA
Kahramanlar, A. A., & Turan, E. İ. (2026). Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care, 7(5), 985-992. https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP
AMA
1.Kahramanlar AA, Turan Eİ. Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies. J Med Palliat Care / JOMPAC / jompac. 2026;7(5):985-992. https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP
Chicago
Kahramanlar, Agah Abdullah, and Engin İhsan Turan. 2026. “Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Preliminary Diagnosis and Initial Treatment Decision-Making in Intensive Care Unit Emergencies”. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care 7 (5): 985-92. https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP.
EndNote
Kahramanlar AA, Turan Eİ (October 1, 2026) Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care 7 5 985–992.
IEEE
[1]A. A. Kahramanlar and E. İ. Turan, “Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies”, J Med Palliat Care / JOMPAC / jompac, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 985–992, Oct. 2026, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP
ISNAD
Kahramanlar, Agah Abdullah - Turan, Engin İhsan. “Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Preliminary Diagnosis and Initial Treatment Decision-Making in Intensive Care Unit Emergencies”. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care 7/5 (October 1, 2026): 985-992. https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP.
JAMA
1.Kahramanlar AA, Turan Eİ. Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies. J Med Palliat Care / JOMPAC / jompac. 2026;7:985–992.
MLA
Kahramanlar, Agah Abdullah, and Engin İhsan Turan. “Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Preliminary Diagnosis and Initial Treatment Decision-Making in Intensive Care Unit Emergencies”. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care, vol. 7, no. 5, Oct. 2026, pp. 985-92, https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP.
Vancouver
1.Agah Abdullah Kahramanlar, Engin İhsan Turan. Comparative evaluation of large language models for preliminary diagnosis and initial treatment decision-making in intensive care unit emergencies. J Med Palliat Care / JOMPAC / jompac [Internet]. 2026 Oct. 1;7(5):985-92. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA75HN58BP

TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1d)

Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
 


 

download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoiVHJfSW5kZXhfbG9nby5wbmciLCJwYXRoIjoiN2EzMC84NTVhL2UyMWMvNjlkZjRkZmVhNTUyNTYuNzg3NjU2ODgucG5nIiwiZXhwIjoxNzc2MjQ1Nzc0LCJub25jZSI6IjU0MDZkMWE2NmE1Y2QwZTJjNGYyNDA1OTM2MTE0YWIxIn0.Tt-WScFXTj5r2jji5eDMFApNzujLMjMPl8ivXRbozSI



f9ab67f.png
download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoiYXNvcy1pbmRleC5wbmciLCJwYXRoIjoiYTQ3ZS9kYmRhL2QzYjQvNmFiY2Y3MDY4NmZiMjUuMDczMjY0MDcucG5nIiwiZXhwIjoxNzkwNzcyNTAyLCJub25jZSI6IjBiM2ViMTI2ZTA0M2U2MTM3N2UwMTk5ZjYwZDJkN2NmIn0.difzNaTXwR_qDqUtwGC46KUnqFOpPqzQDe6PyS4-pVU


 


download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoiQ3Jvc3NyZWYuanBnIiwicGF0aCI6IjAzMzEvMTdkZi8yN2ZkLzY5ZGY0ZThhMDZkMjg0LjQxMjAyNDg5LmpwZyIsImV4cCI6MTc3NjI0NTkxNCwibm9uY2UiOiI2NjM1Yjc5MWFiY2I1MDQ0NjkzMTAxMDhjY2Y2NzRlMCJ9.5jDQBEY-KErkDK1QjDmv9ichOkNIn5CWYibe1Wz1644
icmje_1_orig.png
 
cc.logo.large.png
 
download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoiTkNCSS5wbmciLCJwYXRoIjoiZTlhOC80YTMxLzE4ZWYvNmFiY2Y3ZWVhNzg4MzcuNDMyNTA0NDEucG5nIiwiZXhwIjoxNzkwNzcyNzM1LCJub25jZSI6ImQ1Yzk5NWUwMjIyNDRjMzcwMDNhYjUyMjc4NjQyMDhjIn0.AUCrjDntXaHWkBs7qldQ3W35Kovi1VQj4xx-wgPyEjY
 
download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoiR29vZ2xlQWthZGVtaWsuanBlZyIsInBhdGgiOiIxM2YwL2IxMWQvYWJiZS82YWJjZjY5Yzg3OWQzMy40ODg0OTYxNS5qcGVnIiwiZXhwIjoxNzkwNzcyMzk2LCJub25jZSI6ImIxNzEwOTM4NzZhMmMxNTQ4NWI3NzM4MTFkOWU5NjM2In0.Ug87xPsIqUrazzHQyCs8V2fG6gD3rxkrx9Py0oCD0M4pn6krf5.jpg
 


 

Our journal is in TR-Dizin, DRJI (Directory of Research Journals Indexing, General Impact Factor, Google Scholar, Researchgate, CrossRef (DOI), ROAD, ASOS Index, Turk Medline Index, Eurasian Scientific Journal Index (ESJI), and Turkiye Citation Index.

EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI and ProQuest Index are in process of evaluation. 

 

Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review".