ReviewBrain sciences2024
Artificial Intelligence as A Complementary Tool for Clincal Decision-Making in Stroke and Epilepsy.
Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel intelligent hybrid reinforcement learning framework for autonomous decision making in complex health cognitive systems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of the performance of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3, Copilot, Perplexity, and medical students in answering neurology questions: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Generative AI in psychiatric education: balancing risks and benefits for responsible integration.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Dual-database Bibliometric Analysis Combined with Gephi-based Network Visualization of Artificial Intelligence Applications in the Identification and Diagnosis of Thyroid Space-occupying Lesions.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
- Towards Transforming Neurorehabilitation: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Diagnosis and Treatment of Neurological Disorders.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Neurology is a quickly evolving specialty that requires clinicians to make precise and prompt diagnoses and clinical decisions based on the latest evidence-based medicine practices. In all Neurology subspecialties-Stroke and Epilepsy in particular-clinical decisions affecting patient outcomes depend on neurologists accurately assessing patient disability. Artificial intelligence [AI] can predict the expected neurological impairment from an AIS [Acute Ischemic Stroke], the possibility of ICH [IntraCranial Hemorrhage] expansion, and the clinical outcomes of comatose patients. This review article informs readers of artificial intelligence principles and methods. The article introduces the basic terminology of artificial intelligence before reviewing current and developing AI applications in neurology practice. AI holds promise as a tool to ease a neurologist's daily workflow and supply unique diagnostic insights by analyzing data simultaneously from several sources, including neurological history and examination, blood and CSF laboratory testing, CNS electrophysiologic evaluations, and CNS imaging studies. AI-based methods are poised to complement the other tools neurologists use to make prompt and precise decisions that lead to favorable patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.