AI vs. ER docs: who makes the right call?
NCT ID NCT07632859
First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Aug 14, 2026 · Updated 1 time
Summary
This study tests whether two AI models, GPT-4o and Claude 4.6 Sonnet, can correctly diagnose patients based on emergency department notes written in Turkish. Researchers will compare the AI's diagnoses to those made by the treating doctor and a panel of three specialists. The goal is to see if AI can help reduce diagnostic errors in emergency medicine.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.
- Active substance
- Large language models (GPT-4o and Claude 4.6 Sonnet) used to analyze patient notes
- What this could lead to
- If successful, this could show that AI can help emergency doctors make faster or more accurate diagnoses, potentially reducing errors.
- What could go wrong
- This is a retrospective study using written notes, not real-time patient care. The AI may not perform as well in a busy emergency room, and results may not apply to other languages or settings.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Participants
-
600 people
The number who actually took part.
- Started
-
May 2026
- Finished
-
Aug 2026
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
Who is studied
The study population comprises consecutive adult patients (aged 18 years and older) evaluated in the ambulatory (green/yellow triage) area of the emergency department of a tertiary care training and research hospital, and whose encounters were documented in the hospital information system (HBYS). Patients triaged to the high-acuity resuscitation area (Emergency Severity Index level 1) were excluded a priori; no Emergency Severity Index level 1 or level 2 presentation occurred within the sampling window, so resuscitation-area presentations are absent from the study population altogether. The findings do not extend to high-acuity emergency care.
- Ages
-
18 years and older
- Sex
-
Anyone
- Healthy volunteers
-
Not accepted
This study is not open to healthy volunteers. The entry requirements below say who it is open to.
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Adult patients (aged 18 years and older) presenting to the emergency department, evaluated in the ambulatory (green/yellow triage) area. A free-text electronic anamnesis note entered at presentation in the hospital information system (HBYS). No minimum note length and no "sufficient information for diagnosis" requirement was applied, because such a criterion preferentially retains more readily classifiable cases; note length was treated as a covariate rather than as an eligibility threshold. A note was excluded only if all three of the following were absent: any symptom statement, any duration or onset information, and a non-empty anamnesis field. An ICD-10 code entered by the treating emergency physician at case closure. Cases in which this entry was absent or did not form a valid ICD-10 code were retained in the analysis set and counted in the denominator of the closure-code analyses. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Notes lacking all three of the following: any symptom statement, any duration or onset information, and a non-empty anamnesis field. Pediatric cases (age under 18 years). Patients critically ill and triaged to high-acuity resuscitation areas (Emergency Severity Index \[ESI\] level 1). Clinical notes containing residual identifying information that cannot be fully de-identified, preventing compliance with data privacy regulations. Non-independent clinical notes consisting solely of a brief cross-reference to a prior hospital visit without a new history entry.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnosis are added.
Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor
Conditions
The condition(s) this trial relates to.
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital
Istanbul, Istanbul, 34899, Turkey (Türkiye)
More trials for these conditions
Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.
- AI on your phone: the future of heart attack detection in the field?
- Hospitals join forces to hunt down missed diagnoses
- AI takes on the experts: a test for diagnosing mycosis fungoides
- Emergency room visit could be a turning point for metabolic health
- AI as a second opinion: could it sharpen emergency diagnoses?
- Tube vs. foot: which blood delivery keeps samples pristine?