Truace
Subscribe
48/100

Emerging evidence

Trace: a gain and a problemPublished recordHealthThe Trace

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Comparative performance and safety of three large language models in pediatric paracetamol poisoning management

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2870raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Benchmark or lab evaluation
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
77166f069142…check it

Abstract Background Paracetamol overdose is a common reason for pediatric poisoning consultations and emergency department visits, and. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical decision support, but evidence on pediatric poisoning is scarce. We compared the performance and safety of three contemporary LLMs for managing pediatric paracetamol poisoning using guideline-based simulated scenarios. Methods In this cross-sectional, comparative, scenario-based study, 30 hypothetical pedi…

54Gain side

How the two sides scoreClose call

51Problem side

The gain

In a study of 30 simulated pediatric paracetamol poisoning cases, Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 24.50 of 25 on expert-rated quality, made no critical safety errors and matched the reference guideline in all 30 responses.

The problem

In the same 30-scenario test of pediatric paracetamol poisoning, Gemini 3 Flash made critical safety errors in 3 of 30 responses and ChatGPT 5.5 in 1 of 30, including missed lab checks and risk of stopping N-acetylcysteine early.

A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.

What the scores mean

G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.

P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.

What this doesn’t fix

Responses were scored by a single three-clinician consensus without inter-rater reliability, using an unvalidated rubric, on hypothetical cases with specific model versions on one date; critical errors were too rare (0–3 of 30) for the comparison to be statistically conclusive.

Sources

1 on file
  1. BMC Pediatricsdoi:10.1186/s12887-026-07949-2
    Peer-reviewed2026-11-11

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2870, v1: “Comparative performance and safety of three large language models in pediatric paracetamol poisoning management.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2870 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 77166f069142db3d…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv177166f069142…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2870 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.