Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Generative AI in Palliative Care: A Comparison with Five Years of Pharmacy Learners.

<b><i>Context:</i></b> Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), offers the potential to augment clinical decision-making, including in palliative care pharmacy, where personalized treatment and assessments are important. Despite the growing interest in AI, its role in clinical reasoning within specialized fields such as palliative care remains uncertain. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study examines the performance of four commercial-grade LLMs on a Script Concordance Test (SCT) designed for pharmacy students in a pain and palliative care elective, comparing AI outputs with human learners' performance at baseline. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Pharmacy students from 2018 to 2023 completed an SCT consisting of 16 clinical questions. Four LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Gemini, and Gemini Advanced) were tested using the same SCT, with their responses compared to student performance. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The average score for LLMs (0.43) was slightly lower than that of students (0.47), but this difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.55). ChatGPT 4.0 achieved the highest score (0.57). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> While LLMs show potential for augmenting clinical decision-making, their limitations in patient-centered care highlight the necessity of human oversight and reinforce that they cannot replace human expertise in palliative care. This study was conducted in a controlled research setting, where LLMs were prompted to answer clinical reasoning questions despite default safety restrictions. However, this does not imply that such prompts should be used in practice. Future research should explore alternative methods for assessing AI decision-making without overriding safety mechanisms and focus on refining AI to better align with complex clinical reasoning. In addition, further studies are needed to confirm AI's comparative effectiveness, given the sample size limitations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PubMed
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10966218251376436
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Generative AI in Palliative Care: A Comparison with Five Years of Pharmacy Learners.

Mary Lane, Rabia S. Atayee, Kyle P. Edmonds
PubMed
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Generative AI in Palliative Care: A Comparison with Five Years of Pharmacy Learners.

Mary Lane, Rabia S. Atayee, Kyle P. Edmonds
article en

Abstract

<b><i>Context:</i></b> Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), offers the potential to augment clinical decision-making, including in palliative care pharmacy, where personalized treatment and assessments are important. Despite the growing interest in AI, its role in clinical reasoning within specialized fields such as palliative care remains uncertain. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study examines the performance of four commercial-grade LLMs on a Script Concordance Test (SCT) designed for pharmacy students in a pain and palliative care elective, comparing AI outputs with human learners' performance at baseline. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Pharmacy students from 2018 to 2023 completed an SCT consisting of 16 clinical questions. Four LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Gemini, and Gemini Advanced) were tested using the same SCT, with their responses compared to student performance. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The average score for LLMs (0.43) was slightly lower than that of students (0.47), but this difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.55). ChatGPT 4.0 achieved the highest score (0.57). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> While LLMs show potential for augmenting clinical decision-making, their limitations in patient-centered care highlight the necessity of human oversight and reinforce that they cannot replace human expertise in palliative care. This study was conducted in a controlled research setting, where LLMs were prompted to answer clinical reasoning questions despite default safety restrictions. However, this does not imply that such prompts should be used in practice. Future research should explore alternative methods for assessing AI decision-making without overriding safety mechanisms and focus on refining AI to better align with complex clinical reasoning. In addition, further studies are needed to confirm AI's comparative effectiveness, given the sample size limitations.

PubMedVol. 28(12)
UC San Diego Health System (US), Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego (US), University of Montana (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.