IF 12.4 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marvin Kopka, Niklas von Kalckreuth, Markus A. Feufel
{"title":"Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self–triage decisions","authors":"Marvin Kopka, Niklas von Kalckreuth, Markus A. Feufel","doi":"10.1038/s41746-025-01566-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs, e.g., NHS 111 online) that assist laypeople in deciding if and where to seek care (<i>self-triage</i>) are gaining popularity and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used too. However, there is no evidence synthesis on the accuracy of LLMs, and no review has contextualized the accuracy of SAAs and LLMs. This systematic review evaluates the self-triage accuracy of both SAAs and LLMs and compares them to the accuracy of laypeople. A total of 1549 studies were screened and 19 included. The self-triage accuracy of SAAs was moderate but highly variable (11.5–90.0%), while the accuracy of LLMs (57.8–76.0%) and laypeople (47.3–62.4%) was moderate with low variability. Based on the available evidence, the use of SAAs or LLMs should neither be universally recommended nor discouraged; rather, we suggest that their utility should be assessed based on the specific use case and user group under consideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":"99 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01566-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

症状评估应用程序(SAA,如英国国家医疗服务系统 111 在线)可帮助非专业人士决定是否就医以及去哪里就医(自我分诊),这种应用程序越来越受欢迎,大语言模型(LLM)的使用也越来越多。然而,目前还没有关于 LLM 准确性的证据综述,也没有综述对 SAA 和 LLM 的准确性进行背景分析。本系统性综述评估了 SAA 和 LLM 的自我分诊准确性,并将其与非专业人士的准确性进行了比较。共筛选出 1549 项研究,并纳入 19 项研究。高级心理咨询师的自我分诊准确率为中等,但变异较大(11.5%-90.0%),而当地健康管理师(57.8%-76.0%)和非专业人员(47.3%-62.4%)的准确率为中等,变异较小。根据现有证据,既不应该普遍推荐使用 SAA 或 LLM,也不应该不鼓励使用;相反,我们建议应根据具体的使用情况和考虑的用户群来评估它们的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self–triage decisions

Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self–triage decisions

Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs, e.g., NHS 111 online) that assist laypeople in deciding if and where to seek care (self-triage) are gaining popularity and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used too. However, there is no evidence synthesis on the accuracy of LLMs, and no review has contextualized the accuracy of SAAs and LLMs. This systematic review evaluates the self-triage accuracy of both SAAs and LLMs and compares them to the accuracy of laypeople. A total of 1549 studies were screened and 19 included. The self-triage accuracy of SAAs was moderate but highly variable (11.5–90.0%), while the accuracy of LLMs (57.8–76.0%) and laypeople (47.3–62.4%) was moderate with low variability. Based on the available evidence, the use of SAAs or LLMs should neither be universally recommended nor discouraged; rather, we suggest that their utility should be assessed based on the specific use case and user group under consideration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信