Previously submitted to: JMIR Formative Research (no longer under consideration since Aug 11, 2026)
Date Submitted: Jul 26, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Aug 4, 2026 - Aug 11, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Reliability of Large Language Model–Based Clinical Decision Support Systems for Procedural Sedation: A Standardized Scenario-Based Benchmarking Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for clinical decision support in health care; however, their reliability in patient-safety–critical domains such as procedural sedation has not been systematically evaluated using standardized, multidimensional methods.
Objective:
To evaluate the reliability of current large language model (LLM)–based clinical decision support systems in procedural sedation management using a standardized, scenario-based benchmarking method.
Methods:
Thirty standardized clinical scenarios representing procedural sedation practice were developed, spanning risk levels from low to critical and covering adult and pediatric cases as well as acute complication management. Each scenario was presented to three current LLM-based clinical decision support systems (ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini) using an identical standard prompt. Model responses were anonymized and scored by three independent experts experienced in procedural sedation, using an 11-item, 5-point Likert scale covering clinical accuracy, guideline adherence, patient safety, and clinical applicability; the presence of a critical error was recorded separately. A total of 270 independent assessments were performed. The primary analysis was conducted at the scenario level; the robustness of the findings was confirmed with complementary statistical analyses. Interrater agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
In the primary scenario-level analysis, a significant overall performance difference was found among the models (Friedman χ²=35.20, df=2, P<.001; Kendall's W=0.587). In Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons, ChatGPT performed significantly worse than both Claude and Gemini (P<.001 for both), while no significant difference was found between Claude and Gemini (adjusted P=.98). Gemini had the highest mean score on the overall expert rating and on all 11 parameters; ChatGPT had the lowest performance on every parameter. Critical error rates were 16.7% for ChatGPT, whereas no critical errors were observed for Claude or Gemini (χ²=31.76, P<.001). Interrater agreement was low at the model level (ICC[2,1]: 0.143-0.409) but moderate across the full dataset (ICC[2,1]=0.521).
Conclusions:
The standardized, scenario-based benchmarking approach demonstrated clear performance differences among the evaluated LLM-based clinical decision support systems in procedural sedation management. However, the substantial critical error rate observed for ChatGPT and the generally low interrater agreement indicate that these systems should not be used independently for safety-critical clinical decisions, and that human oversight (human-in-the-loop) remains indispensable.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.