ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Precision Structuring of Free-Text Surgical Record for Enhanced Stroke Management: A Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Review of Large Language Models and Natural Language Processing in Stroke Care: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Enhancing bone metastasis CT report analysis: a comparison of local and proprietary large language models for privacy and resource efficiency.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Current Landscape and Future Directions Regarding Generative Large Language Models in Stroke Care: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis and Examination of Research Trends.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mechanical thrombectomy (MTB) is a critical procedure for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. However, the free-text format of MTB surgical records limits the formulation of effective postoperative patient management and rehabilitation plans. This study compares the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in structuring data from these free-text MTB surgical record. Methods: This retrospective study collected a total of 382 MTB surgical records from a tertiary hospital. An initial analysis of 30 surgical record from these records provided a guiding prompt for LLMs, focusing on basic and advanced characteristics, such as occlusion locations, thrombectomy maneuvers, reperfusion status, and intraoperative complications. Six LLMs-ChatGPT, GPT-4, GeminiPro, ChatGLM4, Spark3, and QwenMax-were assessed against data extracted by neuroradiologists and a junior physician for comparison. The all 382 surgical records were used to test the performance of LLMs. The performance of the LLMs was quantified using Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, AUC, and MSE as an additional metric for advanced characteristics. Results: All LLMs showed high performance in characteristic extraction, achieving an average accuracy of 95.09 ± 4.98% across 48 items, and 78.05 ± 4.2% overall. GLM4 and GPT-4 were most accurate in advanced characteristics extraction, with accuracies of 84.03% and 82.20%, respectively. The processing time for LLMs averaged 73.10 ± 10.86 seconds of six models, significantly faster than the 427.88 seconds for manual extraction by physicians. Conclusion: LLMs, particularly GLM4 and GPT-4, efficiently and accurately structured both general and advanced characteristics from MTB surgical record, outperforming manual extraction methods and demonstrating potential for enhancing clinical data management in AIS treatment.
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.