Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41289178›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2025

Large language model responses to patient-oriented neurointerventional queries: A multirater assessment of accuracy, completeness, safety, and actionability.

Albert Hw Jiang, Tyler R Ray, Alisha E Suri, Andrew R Menard, Ryan T Kellogg, Arindam R Chatterjee, Matthew A Koenig, Roy K Esaki, Ferdinand K Hui, Jan Vargas

Expression of concernAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Albert Hw JiangJohn A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3284-7284
Tyler R RayMechanical Engineering, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7047-9676
Alisha E SuriJohn A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-9807-8990
Andrew R MenardJohns Hopkins HealthCare LLC, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ryan T KelloggNeurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6491-5443
Arindam R ChatterjeeMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6172-2010
Matthew A KoenigJohn A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Roy K EsakiAnesthesiology, The Queen's Health Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-5405-1966
Ferdinand K HuiNeurointerventional Surgery, The Queen's Health Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3759-7886
Jan VargasNeurosurgery, Prima Health Upstate, Greenville, SC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7164-1479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundAs large language models (LLMs) become increasingly accessible to the public, patients are turning to these tools for medical guidance - including in highly specialized fields like interventional neuroradiology. Despite their growing use, the safety, completeness, and reliability of LLM-generated information in subspecialty medicine remain unclear.MethodsFive publicly available LLMs - ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and DeepSeek - were prompted with four neurointerventional patient-facing clinical questions spanning ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, venous disorders, and procedural device use. Each model was queried three times per question to generate unique responses. Eight blinded raters scored each response on accuracy, completeness, safety, and actionability using Likert scales. Plagiarism analyses were also performed.ResultsDeepSeek consistently outperformed other LLMs in accuracy, completeness, and actionability across four prompts, while Gemini frequently ranked worse, including in plagiarism levels. ChatGPT performed well in accuracy. Physicians were more critical than non-physicians across accuracy, completeness, and safety, whereas non-physicians rated actionability significantly lower. Overall, LLMs were rated relatively high (median of >4 on a 5-point scale) in medical safety, suggesting low risk of overtly harmful advice.ConclusionRecent-generation LLMs offer medically safe, though often incomplete or imprecise, information in response to patient-oriented neurointerventional queries. Including non-physician raters revealed valuable differences in perception that are relevant to how patients may interpret LLM outputs. As benchmark frameworks like HealthBench improve LLM evaluation, inclusion of lay perspectives and subspecialty contexts remains essential. Responsible use by clinicians and ongoing patient education will be critical as LLM use in healthcare expands.

Indexed as

Aneurysmdevicestroketechnology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.