Medical Large Language Model-Assisted Diagnosis and Treatment in Primary Care Chronic Disease Management

July 27, 2026 updated by: Jiangsu Taizhou People's Hospital

Verification and Application Study of Medical Large Language Model-Assisted Diagnosis and Treatment in Primary Care Chronic Disease Management: A Randomized Controlled Study

This study aims to explore the feasibility of using medical large language models to assist in chronic disease management. By setting up experimental and control group interventions and having experts blindly evaluate anonymized cases, it compares different management approaches in chronic disease care, verifying the scientific basis, effectiveness, and potential for broader use of medical large language models in supporting chronic disease management.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Not yet recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
20

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

  • China
    • Jiangsu
      • Taizhou, Jiangsu, China, 225300
        • The Affiliated Taizhou People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Work experience of 3 years or more;
  2. Able to complete the case assessment tasks required by the study;
  3. Have a practicing doctor qualification;
  4. Work at a township health center or community health service center;
  5. Voluntarily participate in the study and sign the informed consent form.

Exclusion Criteria:

N/A

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: LLM-Assisted Intervention Group
Primary care doctors creating management plans for chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, stroke) with the help of large medical language models
Device: Medical large language model
The primary care physicians in the intervention group completed the management decisions for chronic disease cases, including disease assessment, examination suggestions, treatment plans, selection of management methods, and health education, with the assistance of the medical LLM.
No Intervention: Usual Care Control Group
Primary care doctors creating management plans for chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, stroke) without the help of a large medical language model

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
expert overall scores
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale on several aspects: accuracy of condition assessment, reasonableness of test recommendations, reasonableness of treatment plans, appropriateness of management choices, scientific nature of patient education content, feasibility at the primary care level, overall clinical quality. Experts were instructed to rank the seven dimensions from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
accuracy of condition assessment
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale on accuracy of condition assessment from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
reasonableness of test recommendations
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale regarding the reasonableness of test recommendations. Experts were instructed to rank the dimension from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
reasonableness of treatment plans
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale regarding the reasonableness of treatment plans. Experts were instructed to rank the dimension from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
appropriateness of management choices
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale regarding the ppropriateness of management choices. Experts were instructed to rank the dimension from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
scientific nature of patient education content
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale regarding the scientific nature of patient education content. Experts were instructed to rank the dimension from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
feasibility at the primary care level
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale regarding the feasibility at the primary care level. Experts were instructed to rank the dimension from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
the overall clinical quality
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. They rated them using a Likert scale regarding the overall clinical quality. Experts were instructed to rank the dimension from lowest to highest quality. These ordinal rankings were then converted into standardized scores of 1 to 5. Higher scores mean better.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
risk advice
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. If there is no risk advice, the expert selects 'No'; otherwise, the expert selects 'Yes' and specifically lists the content of the risk advice.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
Any diagnostic or treatment information missing
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
A total of 200 cases (50 each of coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke) were grouped by disease type and independently evaluated in a blinded manner by three subspecialty experts. For each case, the two management plans were anonymized in the same way and then randomly labeled by a computer as Plan A and Plan B. Experts could only view the anonymized case information and the two corresponding anonymized management plans. If there is no omission of diagnostic and treatment information, the expert selects "No"; otherwise, the expert selects "Yes" and specifically lists the omitted diagnostic and treatment content.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.
feedback regarding the use of medical LLM by primary care physicians
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 3 months.
After primary care physicians complete a case assessment assisted by medical LLM , they will fill out an evaluation of the medical LLM usage, including whether the medical LLM helped in disease assessment, assisted in formulating examination plans, aided in developing treatment plans, improved chronic disease management capabilities, supported chronic disease education, assisted in management approach selection, enhanced confidence, saved time, whether there were hallucinations or omissions, whether it provided risky suggestions, and any additional comments on the use of the medical LLM.
through study completion, an average of 3 months.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Jiangsu Taizhou People's Hospital

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
August 17, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
September 30, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
November 30, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
July 20, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 27, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
July 31, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
July 31, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 27, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
July 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • LSKY 2026-114-01

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings