TRV-2026-0857Version 1 · Certified
Reason for this version
Certified into the record
Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)
TRUVACE RECORD VERSION record: TRV-2026-0857 version: 1 kind: certified reason: Certified into the record timestamp: 2026-08-23T06:03:17.723213Z status: published lens: p_space sector: health headline: A large language models-assisted and expert-corrected workflow for preoperative anesthesia assessment drafts: A single-centre exploratory feasibility study dek: Large language models (LLMs) may help organize clinical information, but their use in perioperative settings requires careful evaluation because errors may have immediate safety implications. This study aimed to describe the feasibility and perceived usefulness of a single-centre, expert-corrected LLM workflow for preparing preoperative anesthesia assessment drafts for complex consultation cases. Secondary aims were to describe error patterns identified by anesthesiologists and to explore residents' perceptions… gain_title: (none) problem_title: Large language models (LLMs) may help organize clinical information, but their use in perioperative settings requires careful evaluation because errors may have immediate safety implications. trace_subject: (none) gain_reading: (none) gain_evidence: (none) problem_reading: Large language models (LLMs) may help organize clinical information, but their use in perioperative settings requires careful evaluation because errors may have immediate safety implications. problem_evidence: (none) quick_read: Large language models (LLMs) may help organize clinical information, but their use in perioperative settings requires careful evaluation because errors may have immediate safety implications. This study aimed to describe the feasibility and perceived usefulness of a single-centre, expert-corrected LLM workflow for preparing preoperative anesthesia assessment drafts for complex consultation cases. A large language model-based artificial intelligence system, DeepSeek-R1, was used to generate structured draft assessments from de-identified case information and a standardized prompt. The original LLM-generated drafts were independently reviewed by three experienced anesthesiologists for information completeness, scientific plausibility, and focus on key risk factors. limitation: tag: Evidence-backed problem key_points: This study aimed to describe the feasibility and perceived usefulness of a single-centre, expert-corrected LLM workflow for preparing preoperative anesthesia assessment drafts for complex consultation cases. | Secondary aims were to describe error patterns identified by anesthesiologists and to explore residents' perceptions after reviewing expert-corrected materials. | We retrospectively selected 15 complex preoperative anesthesia consultation cases from The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. rundown: Large language models (LLMs) may help organize clinical information, but their use in perioperative settings requires careful evaluation because errors may have immediate safety implications. This study aimed to describe the feasibility and perceived usefulness of a single-centre, expert-corrected LLM workflow for preparing preoperative anesthesia assessment drafts for complex consultation cases. Secondary aims were to describe error patterns identified by anesthesiologists and to explore residents' perceptions after reviewing expert-corrected materials. We retrospectively selected 15 complex preoperative anesthesia consultation cases from The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. sources: - peer_reviewed | Medicina Clínica | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2026.107571 | 2026-08-21 prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
- sha256
- 0543d556a50b9426b0ffb66352cba1314a05138db34765fd34271a0531750e8f
- previous
- 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-0857 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.
ace