ArticleCerebrovascular diseases extra2025
Automated Identification of Stroke Thrombolysis Contraindications from Synthetic Clinical Notes: A Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in Cerebrovascular diseases extra, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of Synthetic Data Generation by Language Models in Biomedical Research and Application: Data Utility and Quality Perspectives.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2026Review
- Systematic Review of Large Language Models and Natural Language Processing in Stroke Care: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Large Language Models in Clinical Neurology: A Systematic Review.Research square · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTimely thrombolytic therapy improves outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. Manual chart review to screen for thrombolysis contraindications may be time-consuming and prone to errors. We developed and tested a large language model (LLM)-based tool to identify thrombolysis contraindications from clinical notes using synthetic data in a proof-of-concept study.
methodsWe generated 150 synthetic clinical notes containing randomly assigned thrombolysis contraindications using LLMs. We then used Llama 3.1 405B with a custom prompt to generate a list of thrombolysis contraindications from each note. Performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and F1 score.
resultsA total of 150 synthetic notes were generated using five different models: ChatGPT-4o, Llama 3.1 405B, Llama 3.1 70B, ChatGPT-4o mini, and Gemini 1.5 Flash. On average, each note contained 241.6 words (SD 110.7; range 80-549) and included 1.5 contraindications (SD 1.1; range 0-5). Our tool achieved a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI: 86.3%-94.3%), specificity of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.8%-99.5%), PPV of 87.7% (95% CI: 82.7%-91.7%), NPV of 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1%-99.6%), accuracy of 98.7% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.0%), and an F1 score of 0.892. Among the false positives, 24 (86%) were due to the inclusion of irrelevant contraindications, and 4 (14%) resulted from repetitive information. No hallucinations were observed.
conclusionOur LLM-based tool may identify stroke thrombolysis contraindications from synthetic clinical notes with high sensitivity and PPV. Future studies will validate its performance using real EMR data and integrate it into acute stroke workflows to facilitate faster and safer thrombolysis decision-making.
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.