Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053715›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

GPT-4 as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in Ischemic Stroke Management: Evaluation Study.

Amit Haim Shmilovitch, Mark Katson, Michal Cohen-Shelly, Shlomi Peretz, Dvir Aran, Shahar Shelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amit Haim ShmilovitchDepartment of Neurology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7587-7073
Mark KatsonDepartment of Neurology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5568-998X
Michal Cohen-ShellySagol AI Hub, ARC Innovation Center, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6532-9252
Shlomi PeretzDepartment of Neurology, Shamir Medical Center, Be`er Ya`akov, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9045-9987
Dvir Aran *Faculty of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6334-5039
Shahar Shelly *Department of Neurology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3585-1687

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCerebrovascular diseases are the second most common cause of death worldwide and one of the major causes of disability burden. Advancements in artificial intelligence have the potential to revolutionize health care delivery, particularly in critical decision-making scenarios such as ischemic stroke management.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of GPT-4 in providing clinical support for emergency department neurologists by comparing its recommendations with expert opinions and real-world outcomes in acute ischemic stroke management.

methodsA cohort of 100 patients with acute stroke symptoms was retrospectively reviewed. Data used for decision-making included patients' history, clinical evaluation, imaging study results, and other relevant details. Each case was independently presented to GPT-4, which provided scaled recommendations (1-7) regarding the appropriateness of treatment, the use of tissue plasminogen activator, and the need for endovascular thrombectomy. Additionally, GPT-4 estimated the 90-day mortality probability for each patient and elucidated its reasoning for each recommendation. The recommendations were then compared with a stroke specialist's opinion and actual treatment decisions.

resultsIn our cohort of 100 patients, treatment recommendations by GPT-4 showed strong agreement with expert opinion (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93) and real-world treatment decisions (AUC 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.91). GPT-4 showed near-perfect agreement with real-world decisions in recommending endovascular thrombectomy (AUC 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98) and strong agreement for tissue plasminogen activator treatment (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.86). Notably, in some cases, GPT-4 recommended more aggressive treatment than human experts, with 11 instances where GPT-4 suggested tissue plasminogen activator use against expert opinion. For mortality prediction, GPT-4 accurately identified 10 (77%) out of 13 deaths within its top 25 high-risk predictions (AUC 0.89, 95% CI 0.8077-0.9739; hazard ratio 6.98, 95% CI 2.88-16.9; P<.001), outperforming supervised machine learning models such as PRACTICE (AUC 0.70; log-rank P=.02) and PREMISE (AUC 0.77; P=.07).

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of GPT-4 as a viable clinical decision-support tool in the management of acute stroke. Its ability to provide explainable recommendations without requiring structured data input aligns well with the routine workflows of treating physicians. However, the tendency toward more aggressive treatment recommendations highlights the importance of human oversight in clinical decision-making. Future studies should focus on prospective validations and exploring the safe integration of such artificial intelligence tools into clinical practice.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision supportGPT-4ischemic strokeneurology

Identifiers

PMID40053715
PMCPMC11928773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.