ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Beyond traditional prognostics: integrating RAG-enhanced AtlasGPT and ChatGPT 4.0 into aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage outcome prediction.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- GPT-based prediction of short-term survival following decompressive hemicraniectomy in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction.Frontiers in neurology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the predictive accuracy of advanced AI language models and established clinical scales in prognosticating outcomes for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This retrospective cohort study included 82 patients suffering from aSAH. We evaluated the predictive efficacy of AtlasGPT and ChatGPT 4.0 by examining the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's Index, in comparison to established clinical grading scales such as the World Federation of Neurological Surgeons (WFNS) scale, Simplified Endovascular Brain Edema Score (SEBES), and Fisher scale. This assessment focused on four endpoints: in-hospital mortality, need for decompressive hemicraniectomy, and functional outcomes at discharge and after 6-month follow-up. In-hospital mortality occurred in 22% of the cohort, and 34.1% required decompressive hemicraniectomy during treatment. At hospital discharge, 28% of patients exhibited a favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2), which improved to 46.9% at the 6-month follow-up. Prognostication utilizing the WFNS grading scale for 30-day in-hospital survival revealed an AUC of 0.72 with 59.4% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity. AtlasGPT provided the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91) for predicting the need for decompressive hemicraniectomy, with 82.1% sensitivity and 77.8% specificity. Similarly, for discharge outcomes, the WFNS score and AtlasGPT demonstrated high prognostic values with AUCs of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. Long-term functional outcome predictions were best indicated by the WFNS scale, with an AUC of 0.76. The study demonstrates the potential of integrating AI models such as AtlasGPT with clinical scales to enhance outcome prediction in aSAH patients. While established scales like WFNS remain reliable, AI language models show promise, particularly in predicting the necessity for surgical intervention and short-term functional outcomes. The study explored the use of advanced AI language models, AtlasGPT and ChatGPT 4.0, to predict outcomes for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). It found that AtlasGPT provided the highest diagnostic accuracy for predicting the need for decompressive hemicraniectomy, outperforming traditional clinical scales, while both AI models showed promise in enhancing outcome predictions when integrated with established clinical assessment tools.
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.