Feasibility and challenges of large language model (LLM)-generated neonatal resuscitation simulations: a multicenter exploratory study.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Chenguang Xu, Ming Zhou, Dianna Wang, Qianshen Zhang, Jiang-Qin Liu, Genevieve Fung, Mabel Wong, Yin Xue, Georg M Schmölzer, Po-Yin Cheung
{"title":"Feasibility and challenges of large language model (LLM)-generated neonatal resuscitation simulations: a multicenter exploratory study.","authors":"Chenguang Xu, Ming Zhou, Dianna Wang, Qianshen Zhang, Jiang-Qin Liu, Genevieve Fung, Mabel Wong, Yin Xue, Georg M Schmölzer, Po-Yin Cheung","doi":"10.1186/s13049-026-01632-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulation-based training (SBT) in neonatal resuscitation has positive impact on educational and neonatal outcomes. However, the implementation of well-designed SBT imposes multifaceted demands on instructors. Large language models (LLMs) might have potential in dynamically generating contextual resuscitation scenarios. But gaps exist regarding the feasibility and challenges of LLM-generated simulation scenarios in neonatal resuscitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a prospective, multicenter pilot study evaluating the feasibility and challenges of LLM-generated simulation scenarios. Four scenarios including extremely premature infant, placental abruption, born before arrival in hospital and meconium-stained amniotic fluid were generated by ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1. Four equivalent scenarios were extracted from Neonatal Resuscitation Program® (NRP®) and RETAIN (a serious game platform). Totally these 16 scenarios were written on standardized templates, coded and randomized. Nine independent instructors from 5 centers, who were blinded to the source of the scenarios (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, NRP® and RETAIN), evaluated the performance of scenarios using modified Jeffries Simulation Design Scale (JSDS). AI hallucination and qualitative evaluation were also compared among four groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When compared with NRP® scenarios, ChatGPT-generated scenarios demonstrated comparable median scores without statistically significant difference in overall evaluation, whereas DeepSeek and RETAIN had lower scores in overall evaluation, problem-solving efficacy and scenario fidelity. DeepSeek exhibited inferior performance in providing appropriate information. In debriefing design, ChatGPT achieved higher scores than NRP® (effect size r = 0.25, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in AI hallucination between the two LLMs. ChatGPT demonstrated strengths in establishing clear objectives and providing structured debriefing frameworks but exhibited deficiencies in the consistent provision of dynamic vital signs. DeepSeek manifested violations in NRP® algorithm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-generated simulation scenarios might be feasible in facilitating SBT when supervised by NRP® instructors. NRP® deviations and gaps remain in LLM-generated scenarios, which necessitate objective evaluation prior to implementation. Further research assessing educational outcomes and feedback from target learners are essential for the appropriate integration of LLM-generated simulation into SBT.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":49292,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13386711/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-026-01632-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) in neonatal resuscitation has positive impact on educational and neonatal outcomes. However, the implementation of well-designed SBT imposes multifaceted demands on instructors. Large language models (LLMs) might have potential in dynamically generating contextual resuscitation scenarios. But gaps exist regarding the feasibility and challenges of LLM-generated simulation scenarios in neonatal resuscitation.

Methods: This is a prospective, multicenter pilot study evaluating the feasibility and challenges of LLM-generated simulation scenarios. Four scenarios including extremely premature infant, placental abruption, born before arrival in hospital and meconium-stained amniotic fluid were generated by ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1. Four equivalent scenarios were extracted from Neonatal Resuscitation Program® (NRP®) and RETAIN (a serious game platform). Totally these 16 scenarios were written on standardized templates, coded and randomized. Nine independent instructors from 5 centers, who were blinded to the source of the scenarios (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, NRP® and RETAIN), evaluated the performance of scenarios using modified Jeffries Simulation Design Scale (JSDS). AI hallucination and qualitative evaluation were also compared among four groups.

Results: When compared with NRP® scenarios, ChatGPT-generated scenarios demonstrated comparable median scores without statistically significant difference in overall evaluation, whereas DeepSeek and RETAIN had lower scores in overall evaluation, problem-solving efficacy and scenario fidelity. DeepSeek exhibited inferior performance in providing appropriate information. In debriefing design, ChatGPT achieved higher scores than NRP® (effect size r = 0.25, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in AI hallucination between the two LLMs. ChatGPT demonstrated strengths in establishing clear objectives and providing structured debriefing frameworks but exhibited deficiencies in the consistent provision of dynamic vital signs. DeepSeek manifested violations in NRP® algorithm.

Conclusions: ChatGPT-generated simulation scenarios might be feasible in facilitating SBT when supervised by NRP® instructors. NRP® deviations and gaps remain in LLM-generated scenarios, which necessitate objective evaluation prior to implementation. Further research assessing educational outcomes and feedback from target learners are essential for the appropriate integration of LLM-generated simulation into SBT.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

大语言模型(LLM)生成的新生儿复苏模拟的可行性和挑战:一项多中心探索性研究。
背景:基于模拟的新生儿复苏训练(SBT)对教育和新生儿结局有积极影响。然而,设计良好的SBT的实施对教师提出了多方面的要求。大型语言模型(llm)可能具有动态生成上下文复苏场景的潜力。但是,llm生成的新生儿复苏模拟场景的可行性和挑战存在差距。方法:这是一项前瞻性的、多中心的试点研究,评估法学硕士生成的模拟场景的可行性和挑战。chatgpt - 40和DeepSeek-R1分别生成极早产儿、胎盘早剥、未到院出生和羊水粪染4种场景。从新生儿复苏计划®(NRP®)和RETAIN(一个严肃的游戏平台)中提取了四个等效的场景。这16个场景都是在标准化模板上编写的,并进行了编码和随机化。来自5个中心的9名独立教师,对情景来源(ChatGPT, DeepSeek, NRP®和RETAIN)不了解,使用修改的Jeffries模拟设计量表(JSDS)评估情景的性能。并比较四组患者的人工智能幻觉和定性评价。结果:与NRP®场景相比,chatgpt生成的场景在总体评估方面表现出可比较的中位数得分,但在统计上没有显著差异,而DeepSeek和RETAIN在总体评估、问题解决效率和场景保真度方面得分较低。DeepSeek在提供适当信息方面表现较差。在汇报设计中,ChatGPT的得分高于NRP®(效应值r = 0.25, P = 0.02)。两名法学硕士在人工智能幻觉方面无统计学差异。ChatGPT在建立明确的目标和提供结构化的汇报框架方面表现出优势,但在持续提供动态生命体征方面表现出不足。DeepSeek在NRP®算法中存在违规行为。结论:在NRP®教师的监督下,chatgpt生成的模拟场景在促进SBT方面是可行的。在法学硕士生成的场景中,NRP®偏差和差距仍然存在,这需要在实施之前进行客观评估。进一步的研究评估教育成果和目标学习者的反馈对于将法学硕士生成的模拟适当地整合到SBT中至关重要。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The primary topics of interest in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (SJTREM) are the pre-hospital and early in-hospital diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of emergency medicine, trauma, and resuscitation. Contributions focusing on dispatch, major incidents, etiology, pathophysiology, rehabilitation, epidemiology, prevention, education, training, implementation, work environment, as well as ethical and socio-economic aspects may also be assessed for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书