ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2026
Screening Routine Clinical Notes for Epilepsy Surgery Candidates Using Large Language Models.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2026. 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.
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
objectiveEpilepsy surgery is severely underutilized despite proven efficacy, with substantial under-referral of eligible patients in routine clinical practice. This study evaluated the potential role of large language models (LLMs) as decision-support tools for screening unstructured clinical notes to identify epilepsy surgery candidates and stratify them according to prognostic indicators.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed free-text medical records in a non-English language (Hebrew) from 110 patients in a tertiary epilepsy clinic. Six LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, 2.5 Flash, 2.0 Flash; GPT-5, GPT-5 mini; and o4-mini) were prompted to extract surgical eligibility criteria, parameters of the Seizure Freedom Scale (SFS) for surgical prognostication, completion of presurgical evaluations, and previous surgical consideration. Model outputs were compared with expert manual review.
resultsModel performance in identifying core eligibility parameters demonstrated high sensitivity (up to 1.00) and specificity (up to 0.96), with favorable predictive values (PPV up to 0.92, NPV up to 1.00). Majority voting yielded near-perfect sensitivity (1.00 in this cohort) for identifying surgical eligibility. Notably, 45% (13/29) of patients meeting surgical criteria had no prior consideration of surgery. Models demonstrated high accuracy in SFS score evaluation (sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.93) and strong performance in identifying completed presurgical evaluations.
interpretationThese findings suggest the potential role of LLMs to act as decision-support tools for identifying patients who may benefit from surgical evaluation but have not been recognized in routine care. This is supported by the models' high performance in correctly identifying eligible patients, as well as prognostic parameters. As this performance was achieved using off-the-shelf general-purpose models applied directly to raw, non-English clinical notes, it suggests a practical and scalable screening approach across diverse clinical settings.
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.