An interventional study of ChatGPT in Healthy Adult, sponsored by Lahore University of Management Sciences. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Pakistan. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-22.
Sponsored by Lahore University of Management Sciences · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the impact of providing LLM access to physicians on antibiotic prescribing appropriateness, using a composite outcome instrument, the Antibiotic Prescribing Appropriateness Score (APAS), that simultaneously evaluates antibiotic selection, dosing, duration, clinical reasoning, and management planning. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: the intervention group will have access to an LLM alongside conventional resources, while the control group will use conventional resources only (e.g. UpToDate, PubMed and Google Search with AI features disabled). Both groups will respond to a set of clinical vignettes covering common infectious disease scenarios requiring antibiotic prescribing decisions, with responses evaluated using an expert-validated grading rubric and independently scored by blinded raters.
Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing remains one of the most consequential drivers of antimicrobial resistance globally, with particular urgency in low- and middle-income countries, where regulatory enforcement, antibiogram coverage, and specialist infectious-disease support are limited. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in supporting clinical decision-making. LLMs have been explored as tools for synthesizing antibiotic recommendations and flagging spectrum mismatches. Yet LLMs may produce confident but incorrect recommendations, and their use may reduce the quality of physicians' own clinical reasoning through over-reliance. Whether this promise translates into measurably better antibiotic prescribing behavior among practising physicians, measured across the full spectrum of selection, dosing, and clinical reasoning, has not been rigorously evaluated in a randomized, controlled setting.
This study evaluates whether access to an LLM affects the Antibiotic Prescribing Appropriateness Score (APAS) among licensed physicians in Pakistan. Secondary objectives include assessing whether the intervention improves antibiotic selection and spectrum-matching, whether the effect differs by physician clinical experience, and whether LLM access affects the time physicians spend per vignette.
This study will be an assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial with two arms. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control arm in a 1:1 ratio. Outcome assessors (those scoring the APAS responses) will be blinded to participants' group assignments and will evaluate vignette responses without knowledge of which arm the responding physician was in. Each participant is expected to complete 6-10 vignettes in a single, proctored, 75-minute session. The order of vignettes will be randomized independently for each participant to control for order effects. The time spent on each vignette will be automatically recorded.
In the intervention arm, participants will have access to ChatGPT in addition to conventional diagnostic and reference resources (UpToDate, PubMed, Google search with AI features disabled). In the control arm, participants will use conventional resources only (UpToDate, PubMed, Google Search with AI features disabled). Both arms will evaluate the same set of clinical vignettes.
Participants will be presented with clinical vignettes covering common infectious disease scenarios requiring antibiotic prescribing decisions. Vignettes will be sourced and modified based on clinically realistic cases relevant to the target population, and will follow a standardized format, including the patient's chief complaint and history of present illness, and physical examination findings.
Vignettes will cover a range of infectious disease presentations encountered in family medicine, general practice, internal medicine, and emergency medicine, avoid overly rare or highly specialized conditions, and reflect a range of prescribing decisions, including empiric treatment, culture-directed de-escalation, spectrum selection, dosing decisions, and stewardship-sensitive presentations in which withholding antibiotics may be the clinically correct decision, to avoid reward bias toward prescribing. All vignettes will be developed by an independent expert panel, and each vignette will be accompanied by an expert-validated grading rubric specifying expected answers for antibiotic selection, dosing, route, and duration, clinical reasoning, and management planning.
The primary measure of prescribing appropriateness will be the APAS, a four-domain rubric scored out of 10 points per vignette and expressed as a percentage. The adjusted mean difference in vignette-level APAS between the intervention and control arms is the primary outcome of our study. Responses will be independently evaluated by three qualified raters blinded to participant identity and treatment assignment. The arithmetic mean of the three raters' total scores will constitute the vignette-level APAS used in the primary analysis.
Lahore University of Management Sciences is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants will have access to ChatGPT in addition to conventional diagnostic and reference resources (UpToDate, PubMed, Google search with AI features disabled). They will evaluate the same set of clinical vignettes covering common infectious disease scenarios requiring antibiotic prescribing decisions, with vignette order randomized independently for each participant.
Other: ChatGPT
Participants will use conventional resources only (UpToDate, PubMed, Google Search with AI features disabled). They will evaluate the same set of clinical vignettes presented in a randomized order.
Participants in the intervention arm will have access to ChatGPT in addition to conventional diagnostic and reference resources.
Antibiotic Prescribing Appropriateness Score (APAS)
The primary outcome will be the composite score (expressed as a percentage) based on an expert-validated rubric that evaluates physician responses across four domains for each clinical vignette: Antibiotic Selection \& Spectrum (0-6 points), Dosing, Route \& Duration (0-3 points), Clinical Reasoning (0-2 points), and Management Plan (0-2 points). The total score for each vignette is the sum of scores across the four domains (maximum 13 points). APAS is expressed as a percentage, calculated as the total score divided by 13, multiplied by 100. The primary endpoint is vignette-level APAS. Responses will be independently evaluated by three licenses physicians blinded to participant identity and treatment assignment. The arithmetic mean of the three raters' total scores will constitute the vignette-level APAS used in the primary analysis.
Time frame: Assessed at a single time point for each case, during the scheduled diagnostic reasoning evaluation session, which takes place between 0-6 days after participant enrollment.
Antibiotic Selection, Spectrum & Dosing Subscore
The antibiotic selection, spectrum, and dosing elements of APAS (0-6 points per vignette, expressed as a percentage), scored using the same rubric as the primary outcome.
Time frame: Assessed at a single time point for each case, during the scheduled diagnostic reasoning evaluation session, which takes place between 0-6 days after participant enrollment.
Time per Vignette
We will compare how much time (in seconds) participants spend per case between the two study arms.
Time frame: Assessed at a single time point for each case, during the scheduled diagnostic reasoning evaluation session, which takes place between 0-6 days after participant enrollment.
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Lahore University of Management Sciences